Page images
PDF
EPUB

comes to $485,852.80. The grand total of prospective savings shown in paragraph 30 of House Document No. 486 is $6,251,000. If there is subtracted from this figure the overstatement of prospective savings which we have calculated, the net result would be $5,765,147.20.

The total Federal and non-Federal annual charges on this project are listed as $5,953,000. You must not overlook the fact that the margin on this project is one of the narrowest that you could possibly have. It is 1.05 to 1, in benefits to costs.

If this $485,000 is eliminated from the savings, then that ratio of benefits to costs will be 0.968 to 1. It will fall below the 1 to 1 ratio.

The significance of falling below the 1 to 1 ratio on one of these projects, as you probably well know, is that the Board of Engineers would not give it a favorable recommendation if it did not have at least a 1 to 1 ratio. General Wheeler made that statement himself before the House committee. I would like to read you a very short exchange between him and Congressman Dondero on this point.

Senator OVERTON. There is no doubt about that. It is not necessary to read it.

Mr. PRINCE. That is his statement absolutely, that they would not recommend it unless it had a 1 to 1 ratio. We believe that simply in checking the figures to see if the method was followed in all respects we have found that there is not a ratio of 1 to 1, accepting their own figures.

Senator Bilbo. That is a rather severe indictment that you are making against the Board.

Mr. PRINCE. Not at all, sir. If there is an explanation of why in any of these instances the method was deviated from, I am absolutely certain that they will make that explanation. All I can say from studying the thing we did not have an opportunity to cross-examine them on their reasons as to why they deviated from this method; there may be a reason; I cannot say that there is not—all I can say is that this does call for an explanation.

Senator OVERTON. The deviation represents only savings in costs of transportation.

Mr. PRINCE. Yes, sir; as far as I know. That is all I found here.

Senator OVERTON. Are there other benefits besides savings on transportation?

Mr. PRINCE. This figure of $6,251,000 includes the $1,200,000 of savings calculated by diversion of traffic from the Mississippi, of which I spoke at some length before you came in, sir. There were only two items of savings shown in the report, one of $1,200,000 and the other of $5,051,000 in transportation costs.

Senator OVERTON. There is no other benefit?

Mr. PRINCE. There is no other dollars-and-cents benefit included in the report.

The tremendous volume of traffic, the tremendous increase shown in this report, as compared with the last report immediately caused us to study the movement of these same items of traffic on other rivers, and we have prepared a statement which I think is one of the most illuminating on this subject that you could possibly find. We have marked it as "Exhibit No. 3".

(The document referred to is as follows:)

Exhibit 3.-Statement showing estimated tonnage anticipated, in the report, as that representing the principal prospective tonnage for the Tom

bigbee-Tennessee waterway project, compared with actual tonnage of the same items moved on various waterways in 1939; showing also the tons per water-mile for each commodity

per

mile

Tons per

mile

Estimated

Miles

Tons

18, 096

18

[ocr errors]

3, 697

165 5, 943

335

[ocr errors]

2, 151 7, 934

87| 737 33, 187 451 195 12, 155

62 658

2,986 132 12, 514 95 737

19, 316 261 195 18, 639 95658

8, 355 1321 48, 075 364 737

28

658
132

658
132 23, 292 176| 737 1, 438 2 195 693 4 658 125
132) 916 7 737 686 1 195 738 41 658 155
132
737
195

658
1321

658
132 497

8, 674 12 195 15, 551 79 658 317
132 11,821 89 737 16, 105 22 195 13,828 71 658 6, 972
132 333, 446 2, 525 737| 323, 405 439 195 113, 929 155 658 37, 725
132 2 47,859 363 737 2 47,811 65 195 2 45, 428 62 658 2 45, 235
132 8, 453
65 737 43, 638 59 195

10, 234 14 658

6, 579 132

33, 467 254 737 50, 711 68 195 8, 338 13 658 4, 622 132 31, 170 9 737 2, 142 3195 5, 565 8 658 384

4.0 920 13. 0920

920

920
29201
2920

920

920
.5 920
11.0 920
57.0 920
69.0 920
10.0 920
7.0 920

6 920

20.0 648

648
648

648
.4648

618
648
648

648 13,819
36.0 648 28, 613
42.0 648

1.4 648
32.0 648
25.0 648
5. 0 648

409
409
409
4091
403
409
409

409
21 409
44 409

409
409
409
409
409

9.0 260

.4 260 12. 0 260

260)

200
5. 0 260
19.0 260

260
77.0 260
32. 260
83. 0 260

.1 260
31.0 260
11.0 260

260

98,000 377
60,000 231
68,000 261
678, 000 2,608
123, 000 473
107,000 412
250,000 923
253, 000 935

65, 0001 250
197,000 757
461,000 1,773
106,000 408
271,000 1,042
114,000

438
47,000 181

31, 491 12, 972 34, 111

2 54

33, 395 38, 216 2 1,323 29, 145 22, 745 4,965

12, 580 4, 630

1 Total tonnage for the Mississippi is not shown since it would contain duplications, as for example, some tonnage moving the entire length of the waterway would be reported in all 4 sections of the waterway.

Mississippi River

88555446-26

Tombigbee-Ten

Ohio River

Tennessee

River

Warrior River

nessee

Baton Rouge, La.,
to but not includ.
ing New Orleans

Mouth of Ohio
River to but
not including
Baton Rouge

Mouth of Mis-
souri to mouth
of Ohio River

Minneapolis,
Minn., to mouth
of Missouri River

Commodity

Tons (1939)

per
mile
Tons

Tons per

Tons (1939)

mile

Tons (!939)

per
mile
Tons

Tons (1939)

Miles

Miles

Miles

Miles

Miles

Rice
Flour
Cotton
Bauxite
Asphalt
Salt.
Phosphate rock
Alumina
Poles and piling
Lumber
Sugar.
Blackstrap molasses.
Fertilizer
Paper
Roofing, shingles, etc.

1321 11, 558

48, 103 651 195

737 195

737 195

4 737

2 Molasses and sirup. 3 Building and roofing material.

Mr. PRINCE. This exhibit is made up on a density basis. In other words, how many tons per mile will they have on the proposed waterway if the prospective estimated tonnage is realized, compared with the tons per mile or density, on four segments into which the Mississippi River is divided, the Ohio River, the Tennessee River, and the Tombigbee-Warrior. Those are set out for the principal items of traffic which are included in this survey. Those items are shown in the left-hand column.

The first commodity I am afraid you will have to disregard, because this was made up prior to the time we discovered the error which Colonel Feringa spoke of in which the commodity of rice was changed to corn. So our figures there are on rice and should not be considered, because we do not know what the proper figures are for corn on the other rivers.

But look at some of the other items. Take the movement of flour, for instance. You have a density per mile of 231 tons on the proposed Tombigbee-Tennessee waterway; and if you will look in the third column with respect to each of the segments of the Mississippi and the other rivers you will see the density of that item of traffic on those rivers for the year 1939 on the basis of the annual report of the Army engineers. These figures are taken from their annual report. You have 231 tons per mile on the Tombigbee-Tennessee; on the Mississippi from Baton Rouge to, but not including, New Orleans, 95 tons per mile; mouth of Ohio River to, but not including Baton Rouge, 26 tons per mile; mouth of the Missouri to the mouth of the Ohio River, 95 tons per mile; Minneapolis to mouth of the Missouri River, 13 tons per mile; none on the Ohio River; none on the Tennessee River; 0.4 per mile on the Tombigbee-Warrior.

Senator OVERTON. That is in 1939?
Mr. PRINCE. Yes.
Senator OVERTON. What is the present report based on?

Mr. PRINCE. A large part of their tonnage is based on the waybill study for 1939. So, in that respect I think it is comparable.

Take the item of salt. We have a density on the TombigbeeTennessee of 412 tons per mile. On the various segments of the Mississippi in the order in which I named them before you have densities of 7 tons per mile, 1 ton per mile, 4 tons per mile, .2 of a ton per mile; none on the Ohio, none on the Tennessee, 5 on the Tombigbee-Warrior.

Senator OVERTON. Sugar is the largest item, is it not?

Mr. PRINCE. Yes. You will find only two instances in which the density on any river or segment of the Mississippi is greater than that which it is anticipated will be realized on the Tombigbee-Tennessee, and those two items are sugar, where the density from Baton Rouge to New Orleans is greater, and on cotton between the same two points. Those are the only instances in any of these items of traffic where there is density greater than that which is supposed to be realized on the Tombigbee-Tennessee, and in most instances it does not even approach it. It is many times greater on the Tombigbee-Tennessee than on these other rivers.

We prepared another exhibit dealing more or less with the same point, but it is prepared on an absolute basis so far as the tonnages are concerned. We have marked it "Exhibit 4."

(The document referred to is as follows:)

EXHIBIT 4.-Statement showing principal prospective tonnage for the Tombigbee

Tennessee waterway project compared with actual tonnage (containing duplications, and with obvious duplications eliminated) of the same items moved on the Mississippi River, Ohio River, Tennessee River, and Tombigbee-Warrior River; showing also mileage of proposed waterway and combined mileage of the other waterways

[blocks in formation]

Mr. PRINCE. That exhibit shows the actual tonnages for the year 1939 of the same commodities on the Mississippi, the Ohio, Tennessee, and Tombigbee-Warrior, both including duplications and eliminating duplications.

I might explain that, because it might be confusing otherwise.

If, for instance, a ton of traffic originated on the Mississippi and was destined to some Tennessee River point it would move over the Mississippi, the Ohio, and the Tennessee and would be counted as a ton of traffic on each of those three rivers and would be included as 3 tons. In the column where it says 'Eliminating duplications” we do not count it simply as 1 ton on the river which originated the traffic.

Now, let us make our comparisons again between the tonnages which would move over the Tennessee-Tombigbee if the estimates of the Army engineers are realized and the tonnages in the year 1939 over 3,699 miles of rivers which are now in operation, and which could move all this traffic if the traffic was suitable and provided the other advantages which would make it move over those waterways. Take the item of flour again. You have 60,000 tons estimated for the Tombigbee-Tennessee, and on all of those rivers combined in the year 1939 only 29,000 tons were hauled.

Take the item of asphalt—123,000 tons is estimated as prospective for the Tennessee-Tombigbee, and only 23,000 tons were hauled over that 3,699 miles of waterway system.

The next is fertilizer. Two hundred and seventy-one thousand tons is the prospective estimated tonnage for the Tombigbee-Tennessee. Over 3,699 miles of waterway in the year 1939 only 90,232 tons moved.

I cannot help but think that when you are faced with that you can only come to the conclusion that in some way they erred in their method of arriving at their estimated traffic. I know that the Army engineers are as sincere in their efforts to arrive at the facts as anyone could be, and I never thought otherwise. I think very highly of them. But if you were faced with these figures and if you had the question before you as a businessman, whether to invest in a commercial project which was dependent upon the realization of this traffic to make it pay, I just do not believe that you could accept it in the face of these figures. It is too fantastic to think that the TennesseeTombigbee would handle this vast quantity of each of these products, whereas the Mississippi, Tennessee, Ohio, Tombigbee, and Warrior combined did not equal the Tombigbee except in one instance. In all of these items there is only one single item on which the traffic exceeded that estimated for the Tombigbee, and that is by 3,000 tons on the item of poles and piling. In every other case the Tombigbee estimate greatly exceeds that for the other rivers combined.

Senator OVERTON. From what source did you get your estimates of tonnages actually moved in 1939?

Mr. PRINCE. From the annual report of the Army engineers, sir. Senator OVERTON. Where did they obtain their figures?

Mr. PRINCE. I do not know that they presented any figures as to the actual movement in 1939. Their figures for the proposed project are an estimate which is based on three things, as I understand it, sir. One was a study of the waybills which were obtained from the railroads by the Board of Investigation and Research. Senator OVERTON. For what year?

Mr. PRINCE. For the year 1939. It is from those waybills in 1939 that a large portion of this traffic is obtained. Then they sent out questionnaires and had field surveys, and then they had a hearing in Mobile, and in those three ways they obtained estimates of traffic which they thought would move over this waterway.

I want to go into several of the points as to why they have come out with this exaggerated figure.

The next exhibit is a rather voluminous-appearing one, but it is necessary in order to have the full facts before you, although you will not be required to look at all of it.

(The document referred to is as follows:)

« PreviousContinue »