questionnaires in which the total potential traffic of the waterway as seen by experienced industrial traffic men was approximately 35,000,000 tons. On the basis of our experience on other waterways we eliminated 26,000,000 tons as not immediately available, not likely to be hauled by barge within 5 years after the project is completed. Ultimately we believe the traffic on this waterway will be more than 9,000,000 tons, probably twice that much."

Senator OVERTON. Is that the existing traffic plus increased traffic? Colonel FERINGA. Yes.

Senator OVERTON. And the 9,000,000 tons, does that represent existing traffic plus increased traffic?

Colonel FERINGA. Yes.

Senator OVERTON. How much is the existing traffic?

Colonel FERINGA. The existing traffic on the Calumet-Sag Channel in 1942 amounted to 668,253 tons. In 1943 it had increased to 828,261, and in 1944 to 1,165,388 tons. It has gone up in a straight line. Senator OVERTON. So that this is an increase of about 8,000,000 tons over existing traffic that you contemplate or estimate?

Colonel FERINGA. Yes.

Senator OVERTON. As a result of this improvement?

Colonel FERINGA. Yes. Both improvements. I would like to invite your attention to this book of traffic graphs which I previously have given the committee. In illustrating the traffic on the Illinois waterway, that is the entire waterway, we used ton-miles because it is more representative.

The traffic on this waterway that I gave you before is concentrated in a comparatively small section. The Illinois waterway itself carries the combined tonnage of the Calumet-Sag Channel and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. We used ton-miles as the quotient of tons and mileage because it is a fair representation of what use is made of the waterway.

I think it is the only unit of measurement you can use. The Illinois waterway handled in 1931 a total of 63,000,000 ton-miles of traffic. In 1944 it carried 227,000,000 ton-miles. The graph shows practically a straight increase except for the little jog during the wartime years when there was not sufficient barges and towboats available.

Senator OVERTON. Mr. Adams makes this point: that while you estimate there will be about 9,000,000 tons available of tonnage through the Calumet-Sag Channel; or whatever it is

Colonel FERINGA. The Cal-Sag Channel.

Senator OVERTON. The Cal-Sag Channel, you have stated, or the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, that it is sound to estimate that only 30 percent of the available traffic will be transported over the channel.

Colonel FERINGA. I don't believe we have made that statement. I won't swear to it.

Senator OVERTON. You said it was reaffirmed by the Board of Engineers.

Colonel FERINGA. Oh, I think that was a report quoted from a Commerce Department report. Isn't that correct?

Mr. ADAMS. No, I think that is a statement of the special board which is advocating it.

Colonel FERINGA. All right. We will look that up.

(Data on traffic are contained in paragraph 11 of the report of the Board of Engineers which is printed herein.)

Colonel FERINGA. I was the district engineer at Jacksonville, Fla., between 1932 and 1936. We had a small bridge built by local interests south of Palm Beach on the Intracoastal Waterway. Local interests had built that bridge, a nice bridge. Traffic had increased. The Secretary of War had ordered them, against their opposition, to take that bridge out and build a new bridge. That resulted from not having looked ahead far enough to anticipate future requirements.

Here we have a waterway along the banks of which there are heavy industries. To increase the width of this waterway later, when it becomes necessary, would disrupt those industries and would be very costly. Local interests have to take care of the bridges and the Governor of Indiana does not like that.

As the resident member of the Board at the time I want to say for myself why it was necessary to take this further step with respect to the development of this waterway. The width of the canal is shown in green. It takes a long while to complete a study and report on a project of this nature. I said, "Why don't we once and for all get it wide enough, so that later we won't have to disrupt industry and move factories again away from the banks. When it is necessary to undertake widening that canal we will have to go before the Appropriations Committee, we will have to justify it, and we are not going to widen it unless it is necessary. But I think we would be failing in our duty if we did not now anticipate that future commerce is going to be sufficient eventually to warrant an increase in the width of that canal." I think that is the way to look at it.

Senator CORDON. That raises a question in my mind, Colonel. I agree with you it would be very foolish not to look into the future and consider the probabilities 10 or 20 years from now, in the widening and the necessity of widening and improving the efficiency and capacity of the canal. I am wondering if it would not be the part of wisdom perhaps now to acquire the necessary additional right-of-way and simply hold it.

I would think that that might be done, and then we could save theor at least put over at this time the construction and await the eventuality and determine whether we are going to spend money if, as, and when conditions change.

Colonel FERINGA. Senator Cordon, I asked the question of the district engineer at that time, I said, "Can't you just leave this vacant and let local interests acquire this land?"

He said, "No, this land is owned and they are going to build right smack up to that water line."

I said, "Then let's go whole hog and recommend ample channel width."

Senator Brooks can probably tell you more about it than I can. This land at the time I saw it was practically undeveloped. It is still comparatively cheap. I think this is the right course to pursue. Senator OVERTON. Of course, if you widened the channel have to reconstruct the bridges.

you would

Colonel FERINGA. That is what we propose. We are looking at the ultimate

Senator OVERTON. You now require the local interests to construct bridges wide enough and long enough to take care of the increased channel in the future?

Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir. To answer one more point

Senator OVERTON. There is one thing in that connection: I recall for instance we authorized channels connecting inland ports with sea waters and they varied in depth from 25 to 30, 31 or 32 feet, but we now find that depth is not sufficient in a good many instances; we have to increase the depth to 35 feet to take care of these modern steamers that have a much deeper draft than those that were formerly used.

You also find this in your 9-foot channels that we authorized. We are authorizing some of them now. The day comes when they will need a 12-foot channel to take care of the larger barges.

So I have always thought it was best to go ahead and meet the issue at once and to have 12-foot barge channels and for these oceangoing vessels 35-foot channels or 40-foot channels, instead of 30-, 31-, or 32-foot channels.

Senator BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to know in your survey how many cities are involved along this channel?

Senator OVERTON. Yes.

Colonel FERINGA. Here is Joliet [indicating on map].

Senator BROOKS. Where is Blue Island?

Colonel FERINGA. Blue Island is right along in here.

Senator BROOKS. Well, I have a letter from the mayor of Blue Island protesting the fact that in your report previously it contemplated that the War Department or the Federal Government would construct these new bridges, that it was changed and that now it is left to local interests and he says in his letter, although there is general approval of the project—

The ownership of these structures seems to be somewhat in question at the present moment, thereby leaving the agency to assume the responsibility of their replacement definitely in doubt. The city of Blue Island and surrounding community desire to have this question definitely settled as it involves financial responsibility far in excess of the city of Blue Island to assume.

Now, what have you done about taking into consideration the financial ability of local interests to build these bridges at the authorized width or at the proposed authorized width? Have you gone into that to see whether they are anxious to do it, willing to do it, or able to do it?

Colonel FERINGA. Yes, Senator Brooks; we do. We hold public hearings in the field. At that time the local views are developed. Local interests tell us through the various associations whether they want improvements or whether they don't, whether they are able to meet the conditions of local cooperation or whether they are not. We found that they were willing, able, and anxious to do so, with the exception of the State of Indiana. The Governor of Indiana stated that he didn't feel that the State of Indiana should pay for the cost of the bridges. Therefore, the Board recommended this project be constructed by separate sections so that if the conditions of local cooperation are met for one section we can do that much, and if the conditions of local cooperation are met later for another section we can

then do that section. We cannot under the law undertake a project until the conditions of local operation are met.

Senator BROOKS. They say you don't pay any of the cost of general public bridges.

Colonel FERINGA. If you recall, there was an act passed called the Truman-Hobbs Act, which placed the cost of replacing railroad bridges on the Federal Government. So by law we replace the railroad bridges under the Truman-Hobbs Act. That law, however, does. not apply to highway bridges.

Senator BROOKS. If you are going into communities where some of them don't feel they are financially able to assume this responsibility, wouldn't it be well to include the cost of the bridges into the Federal Government's contribution?

Colonel FERINGA. Of course, that depends entirely on the policy of Congress. By far the large majority of our projects provide that local interests make the necessary bridge alterations at their expense. We hold hearings to ascertain the views of local interests, and we held hearings in this case on June 2, 1939, and January 10, 1940, in Chicago, and on March 6, 1944, at Gary.

Our recommendations on this project are based on local interests meeting the regional local cooperative. Before we could change that, we would have to be asked by Congress to make a new report and look into that question, Senator.

Senator OVERTON. We have often considered that question of local contribution. So far we have reached the conclusion that there should be a local contribution because otherwise the Federal Government would be loaded with all sorts of proposals in reference to various projects that would not cost the local interests anything, and, therefore, the local interests would be very much in favor of it. But if a project is of sufficient value to local interests to put up a modicum of local contribution, very well and good, but if they do not take a sufficient interest or are unable to do so, why, then, the project is not built.

Local interests must make a fair local contribution to manifest sufficient local interest in the project.

Senator BROOKS. Is the local contribution considered fair if they pay for all the bridges?

Senator OVERTON. That is what they do.

Senator BROOKS. That has been before the Congress several times, and you have always declined to change it? Senator OVERTON. They have to put up the rights-of-way and easements for the enlargement and spoil area. They have to also rebuild highway bridges.There is an exception. That is in the case of dams and reservoirs. For dams and reservoirs the Federal Government assumes all the cost.

Senator BROOKS. May I ask the colonel if he has anything in his record of hearings of the approval or the request of the city of Blue Island—this canal goes right through Blue Island, it cuts it in half, and from this letter they are greatly concerned about their ability to replace that bridge that goes through now. Is there anything in your record of hearings of either a protest or an approval from Blue Island?

Colonel FERINGA. I am not aware of any protest about the bridges except from Senator Black and the Governor of Indiana. I will be

very glad to have the files of the River and Harbor Board searched for such a letter.

(The Board's files contains the following letter from Great Lakes Refining Co., Blue Island, Ill., to the Board of Engineers, which is in favor of the project :)

In re: Sag Channel development, Chicago, Ill.
BOARD OF UNITED STATES ENGINEERS FOR REVIEW,

Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: Recently we acquired property located on the Sag Channel. Should this channel be improved, we will ship by water approximately 3,000 net tons per day. The shipments will move from our plant in Blue Island, Ill., to ports on the Great Lakes.

We trust that the Board of Review will act favorably for the development and improvement of the Sag Channel project.

Yours very truly,

GREAT LAKES REFINING CO.,
ARCHIE M. PAINE, President.

Senator BROOKS. May I ask that this correspondence of mine be inserted in the record at this point on this subject? Senator OVERTON. That may be done. (The letters are as follows:)

United States Senator, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR BROOKS: In reference to your letter of March 23 with attached copy of letter from Lt. Gen. R. A. Wheeler, relative to replacement of bridge structures over the proposed Sag Channel, it would seem from the tenor of General. Wheeler's letter that the eminently competent judgment the Department is adequate to pass on the question of whether or not the interest of the general public should be served by local contribution or Federal aid; while on the other hand, the interests of railroads corporations are determined by an act of Congress. Would it, in your judgment, seem reasonable to have the interest of the general public in this matter defined by an act of Congress; to wit, that some higher authority pass on the question of what, to us, seems an inequitable distribution of the cost of this work.

If this problem in your judgment seems to warrant legislation, in order to clarify the issues, we hereby urge, and respectfully request, that such steps be taken at the earliest possible moment.

With every kind regard and thanks for your past interest and helpfulness in this matter, I remain, JOHN M. HART, Mayor.

MARCH 12, 1946.

Hon. JOHN M. HART,

The Mayor of Blue Island, Ill.

MY DEAR MAYOR: You will find enclosed herewith the report of General Wheeler, the Chief of Engineers, with reference to alteration of highway bridges in Blue Island.

I shall continue to keep you informed of further information as it becomes available to me.

With every good wish,

C. WAYLAND BROOKS.

Hon. C. WAYLAND BROOKS,

MARCH 7, 1946.

United States Senate, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR SENATOR BROOKS: Reference is made to your letter dated February 26, 1946, and its accompanying letter from the Honorable John M. Hart, mayor of the city of Blue Island, Ill., and Mr. Allen L. Fox, city engineer, with further regard to the alteration of highway bridges at this locality in connection with