Page images
PDF
EPUB

Colonel FERINGA. I do not believe the Corps of Engineers feels it is necessary, but I am sure the Secretary of the Interior would consider it to be necessary.

Senator CORDON. I think that before we get through with this bill we should hear from the Interior Department, particularly the Fish and Wildlife Service, which certainly would be the only agency of that Department which could conceivably be interested in river and harbor improvements, at least within the tidewater area, to see what arguments they have in favor of continuing the present provision requiring a report on that type of improvement within that class of area.

Colonel FERINGA. In that connection, Senator Overton, a representative of the Department of the Interior, who I believe was Mr. Warne, appeared before the Flood Control Committee of the House, at which hearing I was not present, and also before the Rivers and Harbors Committee of the House, at which I was present. Mr. Warne tescified that the Interior Department believed it important and desirable that the reports set forth in the respective acts be authorized, subject to the provisions of section I of the last river and harbor and flood control acts. At the request, I think, of Mr. Robertson, the House incorporated in the pending bill an item to the effect that the requirements of section I of the previous act would also apply to the pending bill.

Senator OVERTON. There is no use to repeat what is the law. We do not have to legislate each year.

Colonel FERINGA. As a matter of fact, Judge Whittington asked me about it and I gave him that very statement. We have no objection to it, of course. It was put in on the floor of the House. It was offered and nobody had any objection thereto. The item provides that the law, as it was written-you remember the circumstances of it—will be applicable to the bill now before you; and also the same item is in the pending flood-control bill.

Senator ROBERTSON. Will you tell us what the total cost of this project is?

Colonel FERINGA. The cost for the construction, Senator Robertson, is as follows: The lock is being built by the State of Louisiana. The cost of construction of the waterway, including the jetties to the 6-foot contour, will be $900,000. The jetties found necessary to be constructed to the 9-foot contour would cost an additional $900,000.

Senator ROBERTSON. That is the point I wanted to get.

Senator OVERTON. It is not quite clear to me about the ratio. You say that the ratio of benefits to cost is as 11 to 1?

Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir.
Senator OVERTON. That is extremely high?

Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir. It is due to the fact that the prospective traffic and savings are substantial. The cost-benefit ratio is one of the highest that I recall.

Senator OVERTON. A ratio of cost to benefit, where you extend tho jetty to a 9-foot contour, of 1 to 5.8, is far above the average; is it not?

Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir; that is correct. The benefits are more or less large because they are readily measurable. In the Arkansas Valley, referred to by General Wheeler, some of the benefits are difficult to measure in dollars because they are so largely imponderable. Here we have them right in our grasp and can measure them.

Senator OVERTON. In other words, you know the tonnage of oysters and fish that are shipped annually?

Colonel FERINGA. Yes. We can go to the oystermen and obtain the data.

Senator OVERTON. You know what time is saved, and exactly the savings that will be made, almost as mathematical figures?

Colonel FERINGA. You are completely right, Mr. Chairman.
Senator ROBERTSON. What other potential traffic is there?

Colonel FERINGA. A large oil field has been brought in there, and it is expected that as in so many parts of that country, particularly farther west, a tremendous oil traffic will develop.

Senator OVERTON. There are no railroads in that vicinity; are there?
Colonel FERINGA. No, sir.
Senator OVERTON. So that the only transportation is by water?
Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir.

Senator CORDON. Will you still maintain the entrance to Bastion Bay if this improvement be made?

Colonel FERINGA. We will maintain it if it is necessary. As you know, nonuse of a waterway will result in suspension of maintenance work. We seldom report such projects to Congress for abandonment until we are certain that they should be abandoned by law. Our maintenance funds are so limited that we do not maintain any project unless it is necessary for the needs of existing traffic. However, in setting up the cost-benefit ratio for this project we did not assume the present project would be abandoned.

Senator ÖVERTON. What is the local contribution?

Colonel FERINGA. The local people will be required to furnish all lands including suitable spoil disposal areas. They are also building the lock at their expense. Mr. Pyburn no doubt knows how much this will cost.

Mr. PYBURN. Approximately $250,000.

Senator OVERTIN. I would like to have inserted in the record a letter from Mrs. Gladys M. O'Freeall, addressed to me, and dated June 8, 1946, with reference to the Grand Bayou Pass project. (The letter referred to is as follows:)

NEW ORLEANS 15, LA., June 8, 1946. Senator JOHN H. OVERTON,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: On Friday, May 31, the Item, afternoon paper of this city, carried a short article which read as follows:

" 'Hearings on the Grand Bayou Pass project will begin June 10 before the Senate subcommittee now considering the river and harbor bill,' Senator John H. Overton said today. “There is no known opposition to the project,' he added.

“The plan provides for construction of a waterway 9 feet deep and 80 feet wide from the State-owned Dollut Canal at Empire southerly by way of natural channels and land cuts through Pelican Island to the Gulf of Mexico."

In this connection, I wish to advise that I am the onwer of Pelican Island, and no information with reference to such cuts has been communicated to me, and my permission to grant such cuts has not been sought. While I am favorably inclined to permit such cuts in order to have a channel, such as is planned, near the three islands adjoining each other, all of which I own, viz, Shell Island, Pelican Island, and Bastion Island, however, all plans contemplated should be sent to me before action is taken.

I will appreciate it very much if you will let me have any information that is
in your possession with reference to this matter.
Thanking you in advance, I beg to remain
Very truly yours,

GLADYS M. O'FERRALL.
Mrs. John T. O'Ferrall.

Suppose you take up the next project.

SABINE RIVFR AND TRIBUTARIES, TEXAS-IMPROVEMENT OF COW

BAYOU, TEX.

Colonel FERINGA. There is one other project, Mr. Chairman, that Judge Mansfield regretted the Department's study thereof was not completed at the time the bill had been reported to the House.

Senator OVERTON. Neither Grand Bayou nor Cow Bayou was presented?

Colonel FERINGA. No, sir. They were not ready at that time. You, I think, upon Judge Mansfield's request, asked me about this project. Incidentally, I wish to bring out that our report on Cow Bayou as well as the report on Grand Bayou are before the Bureau of the Budget, they having reached that Bureau on the 5th of June.

Senator OVERTON. You may proceed and give us an explanation of the Cow Bayou project.

Colonel FERINGA. Suppose I go to the map and explain it briefly, and then I shall answer any questions.

Senator OVERTON. Suppose you do that, please.

Colonel FERINGA. The report on Sabine River and its tributaries, Texas, is an interim report with respect to improvement of Cow Bayou, Tex., and is in response to a resolution adopted March 20, 1945, and to an item in the River and Harbor Act approved March 2, 1945.

I may mention that each report is the result of definite congressional action and that we cannot make a report unless requested to do so either by a committee resolution or by an act of Congress.

Senator OVERTON. You can make a new report?
Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir.
Senator OVERTON. To enlarge a project requires an act of Congress?

Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir. The proposed improvement of Cow Bayou is a combination of flood control and navigation. It is a multiple-purpose improvement. Cow Bayou is a wandering stream which flows into the Sabine River at a point about 5 miles below Orange, Tex.

Senator OVERTON. How far is that from Sabine Lake?
Colonel FERINGA. It is a distance of 372 miles.

Senator OVERTON. Cow Bayou enters the Sabine River about 374 miles above the mouth of the Sabine?

Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir.
Senator OVERTON. All right.

Colonel FERINGA. Cow Bayou is extremely tortuous and the country around it is low. As you see, these loops in the bayou nearly touch each other. Consequently these horse-shoe bends do not allow proper discharge of the flood waters, and much flood damage results from the water being backed up.

Senator OVERTON. Is this a combination of river and harbor improvement and flood control?

Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir. - Senator OVERTON. River and harbor improvement and navigation predominate, I assume?

Colonel FERINGA. The major benefits are from flood control. The local interests will be required to maintain the channel in Cow Bayou upstream from the proposed turning basin, which is at Orangefield,

Tex. This upper section of the channel is distinctly for flood control. The turning basin will be 13 feet deep, 300 feet wide, and 500 feet long.

There are tremendous oil fields in this location (indicating on map] and, as you know, it is cheaper to transport oil by water than by any other means. Consequently the local people are anxious to be able to capture some of those benefits and be able to ship their oil down this waterway to the many refineries, or to the Gulf and to points where the oil will be used.

The channel below the turning basin will be 13 feet deep and 100 feet wide and will follow the general course of Cow Bayou to its junction with the Sabine River.

Senator OVERTON. Are there any refineries located on Cow Bayou?
Colonel FERINGA. No, sir; not now, unless I am mistaken.
Senator OVERTON. The crude oil is to be shipped to the refinery?
Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir.
Senator OVERTON. Is that going to be the main source of tonnage?

Colonel FERINGA. Our studies indicate that much of the traffic will be the oil and mud shell.

Senator OVERTON. Will there be any in-bound tonnage?
Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir; the mud shell will be in-bound.
Senator OVERTON. Oil will be all out-bound tonnage?

Colonel FERINGA. The oil; yes, sir. When such waterway projects are just completed oil is nearly all out-bound tonnage, but it usually does not take very long before the in-bound tonnage develops on the waterway. Senator OVERTON. That is very true.

. What is the annual flood damage?

Colonel FERINGA. The flood area below the upper limit of the oil field at Orangefield is 6,630 acres, of which about 3,000 acres are used for grazing and farming, including some in the oil field.

It is estimated that 44 damaging floods occurred in the Orangefield area during the period February 1917 through September 1945, of which the most damaging occurred July 1943 and May 1944. Estimated direct and indirect damages to agricultural, residential, business, oil field, transportation, and utility properties by a flood equivalent to that of May 1944 amount to $148,000. The estimated average annual damages amount to $39,000, of which $30,000 is direct and $9,000 is indirect.

The cost of the construction to the United States is $323,000. The cost to local interests will be $31,000. The cost-benefit ratio is as 1 to 1.71.

It is expected that eventually about 100,000 tons annually will move on the waterway. Local interests will be required to provide, free of cost to the United States, all rights-of-way and spoil-disposal areas, maintain after completion that portion of the project above the proposed turning basin, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of War, and make all necessary highway and highway bridge changes and maintain and operate such structures after completion of the project, and bear the expense of any necessary alterations of pipe lines and submarine cables.

Senator ROBERTSON. What pipe lines are there?

Colonel FERINGA. I do not know offhand. I believe there are small pipe lines across the waterway.

Senator ROBERTSON. You do not mean oil pipe lines?
Colonel FERINGA. It could be oil or gas pipe lines.

Senator ROBERTSON. Are there any pipe lines from the oil field which might be paralleling there?

Colonel FERINGA. I do not know. The cost of water-borne transportation of oil is cheaper than by normal pipe line. I can look it up and find out.

Senator OVERTON. Will you ascertain that and put the information into the record?

Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERTON. If there are any there would they be taken into consideration?

Colonel FERINGA. Definitely taken into consideration. I am sure there are no parallel lines. There may be some serving the territory.

Senator CORDON. There might conceivably be pipe lines from the wells to some large components from which the oil would then be taken to barges?

Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir. There probably would be. Mr. Muller, who was present during the Board's deliberations, tells me that there are no normal pipe lines for transshipment.

(The requested additional information on the matter of pipe lines in the area to be served by the Cow Bayou improvement follows:) There are no major petroleum pipe lines in that area. The pipe lines referred to are three gas lines and eight petroleum lines. The petroleum lines are small in diameter and short in mileage and are used for gathering purposes from the fields. They are mainly four and six inches in diameter.

Senator Overton. To get that oil out of the territory requires water transportation, and there is no other way of transporting it?

Colonel FERINGA. It might be transported by truck, of course, and, I suppose, by rail.

Senator OVERTON. Do you know whether or not there are any railroads that traverse the area?

Colonel FERINGA. There are undoubtedly railroads that traverse it, but there are no parallel ones. The Southern Pacific goes to Orange. Undoubtedly most of that oil is being moved by rail now, sir.

Senator OVERTON. Is there any opposition to this project?
Colonel FERINGA. I am not aware of any.

Senator OVERTON. Apparently there is no local opposition. I might make the same statement that I made with regard to Grand Bayou. This was a new project coming up and I wanted to be sure that all the local interests were advised that we were going to conduct hearings, so that they could appear or send written statements in opposition to the project, if any they had. I would like to incorporate in the record at this point a reproduction of the letter that I addressed to each and every one interested, as far as I could ascertain, with respect to this project, calling upon them to state whether or not they were opposed to the authorization of the project and giving them the right to appear in person before the subcommittee, and also requesting them, as I did in the case of Grand Bayou, to invite all others “whom you think would have any interest in the project.” Therefore, the local interests were very thoroughly advised concerning this matter.

« PreviousContinue »