Work shall not be commenced on such dams or dikes until the plans therefor, including plans for all accessory works, are submitted to and approved by the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, and the Secretary of War, who may impose such conditions and stipulations as they deem necessary to protect the interests of the United States. The authority granted by this section shall terminate if the actual construction of the dams or dikes hereby authorized is not commenced within one year and completed within three years from the date of the passage of this Act. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this section is hereby expressly reserved. SEC. 4. The Secretary of War may assign two retired engineer officers of the Army, with their consent, to active duty; one as resident or senior member of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors organized pursuant to the provisions of section 3 of the River and Harbor Act of June 13, 1902, as amended, and one as resident or senior member of the Beach Erosion Board organized pursuant to the provisions of section 2 of the River and Harbor Act of July 3, 1930: Provided, That such assignment shall not be made for a period extending beyond four years from the date of retirement. SEC. 5. That there may be established in the Office of the Chief of Engineers a position to be filled by an engineer with not less than fifteen years' actual experience in the classified civil service on river and harbor or flood-control work of the Corps of Engineers; the salary for which shall be fixed, from time to time, by the Secretary of War upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers at not to exceed $12,000. SEC. 6. The Secretary of War is hereby authorized and directed to cause preliminary examinations and surveys to be made at the following-named localities, the cost thereof to be paid from appropriations heretofore or hereafter made for such purposes: Provided, That no preliminary examination, survey, project, or estimate for new works other than those designated in this or some prior Act or joint resolution shall be made: Provided further, That after the regular or formal reports made as required by law on any examination, survey, project, or work under way or proposed are submitted no supplemental or additional report or estimate shall be made unless authorized by law: Provided further, That the Government shall not be deemed to have entered upon any project for the improvement of any waterway or harbor mentioned in this Act until the project for the proposed work shall have been adopted by law: Provided further, That reports of surveys on beach erosion and shore protection shall include an estimate of the public interests involved, and such plan of improvement as is found justified, together with the equitable distribution of costs in each case: And provided further, That this section shall not be construed to interfere with the performance of any duties vested in the Federal Power Commission under existing law: Lynn Harbor, Massachusetts. Cuttyhunk Harbor, Massachusetts. Newport Harbor, Rhode Island. Bullocks Point Cove, Rhode Island. Dutch Island Harbor, Rhode Island. Cove Harbor and Cove Pond, Connecticut. Patchoque River, Connecticut. Connecticut River, Connecticut. Harbor at Pine Orchard, Branford, Connecticut. Greenwich Cove, Connecticut. Sag Harbor, New York. East Basin of Mamaroneck Harbor, New York. Milburn Creek, Swift Creek, and adjacent bays and channels, New York. Mohawk and Hudson Rivers, New York, with a view to the elimination of the water chestnut. Rondout Harbor, New York. Cold Spring Inlet (Cape May Harbor), New Jersey, with a view to shore protection. Delaware River between Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Trenton, New Jersey. Delaware River, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, Philadelphia to the sea. Pennypack Creek, a tributary of the Delaware River located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with a view to providing facilities for light-draft navigation. North East River, Cecil County, Maryland, from Church Point to Stony Run. Harbor at Betteron, Maryland. Little Creek, Kent Island, Queen Annes County, Maryland. Lakes Cove, Honga River, Dorchester County, Maryland. Tedious Creek, Dorchester County, Maryland, with a view to establishing such jetties as may be necessary. Insley's Cove, Fox Creek, Dorchester County, Maryland. Saint Michaels, Talbot County, Maryland. Johnsons Creek, a branch of the Wicomico River, in Somerset County, Maryland. Patuxent River, Maryland, with a view to establishing a deep-water port at Benedict and a suitable navigation channel thence to Solomons Island. Lake Placid, Shore Acres, Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Hull Creek, Virginia. Harpers Creek, Mathews County, Virginia, and the channel connecting said creek with Mobjack Bay. Aberdeen Creek, Gloucester County, Virginia. Salters Creek, Newport News, Virginia. At or near Hopewell, Virginia, with a view to the construction of a harbor for light-draft vessels. Oregon Inlet, North Carolina, and Channel from Manteo to Oregon Inlet; particularly with a view to providing a depth of twelve feet to fifteen feet through the Ocean Bar Channel, thence a channel ten feet to twelve feet deep through the inlet to Pamlico Sound via Davis Slough, Old House Channel, or other more suitable route. Harkers Point Basin, at Harkers Island, Carteret County, North Carolina. Cross-Rock Channel between Wallace Channel and Sheep Island Slue, via Casey Island, Pamlico Sound, North Carolina. Neuse and Trent Rivers, North Carolina. Carolina Beach, North Carolina. Cape Fear River at and below Wilmington, North Carolina. Holden Beach, Brunswick County, North Carolina. Intracoastal Waterway, with a view to constructing a boat basin at or near Ocean Drive Beach, South Carolina. Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, with a view to establishing a harbor for lightdraft vessels. Julington Creek, Florida. Little Pottsburg Creek, Florida. Rice Creek, Putnam County, Florida. Sebastian Inlet, Florida. West Palm Beach Canal, Hillsboro Canal, New River Canal, and Miami Canal, for the purpose of raising the water table in the area of Lake Okeechobee, Florida. Boca Raton Inlet, Florida, including connection with the Intracoastal Water way. Saint George Sound at East Point, Florida. East Point, Apalachicola Bay, Florida. Apalachicola Bay, Florida, with a view of constructing a yacht basin. West Gap, Saint George Island, Florida. Waterway from Saint Mary DeGalvez Bay, across Santa Rosa Peninsula, to Sound Bay, Florida. Choctawatchee River, Alabama and Florida. Arkansas River, from Little Rock, Arkansas, to Mississippi River via Grand Prairie. Mississippi River at West Memphis, Arkansas, with a view to the construction of a harbor. Hatchie River, Mississippi and Tennessee, in the interest of navigation and flood control. Harbor at Springsteel Island, Lake of the Woods, Minnesota. Lake Taneycomo, Missouri. Lake De Pue in Bureau County, Illinois, and its connecting channels to the Illinois River. Wisconsin River, Wisconsin. Lake Superior shore line from Middle Island Point south to the mouth of Carp River with a view to providing a harbor for light-draft vessels. Black River, Port Huron, Michigan. Charlevoix Harbor, Michigan: The South Arm, with a view to the construction of a breakwater at or near East Jordan. Leland Harbor, Michigan, with a view to shore protection. Millecoquin River, Michigan, and the adjacent waters of Lake Michigan. Grand Traverse Bay on Lake Michigan and adjacent waters, with a view to the establishment of a suitable lock system to permit the passage of boats between Grand Traverse Bay and Torch Lake and other lakes in Antrim County, Michigan. West Fork of White River, Indiana. Fairport Harbor, Ohio, with a view to shore protection. Muskingum River, Ohio. Cattaraugus Creek, New York. Irondequoit Bay, New York. Great Salt Lake, at or near Garfield, Utah, with a view to providing a harbor for light-draft vessels. The coast of northern California from Point Pinos to the northern boundary of the State, including the San Francisco Bay area, with a view to the establishment of harbors for light-draft vessels. Harbor at Camp Pendleton, California, with a view to shore protection. Duwamish Waterway, Washington. Deception Pass, Skagit Bay, Washington. Shilshole Bay, Ballard Locks, Seattle, Washington. Olympia Harbor, Washington. Harbor at Hydaburg, Alaska. Harbor at Angoon, Alaska. Channel to connect Oliver Inlet and Seymour Canal, Alaska. Tenakee Harbor, Alaska. Harbor at Pelican, Alaska. Harbor at Gustavus, Alaska. Hilo Harbor, Hawaii, including consideration of a seawall to protect against tidal waves and excessive high tides. Kawaihae Harbor, Hawaii. Passed the House of Representatives June 6, 1946. SOUTH TRIMBLE, Clerk. By H. NEWLIN MEGILL. Senator OVERTON. I wish to say, by way of preliminary remarks, that I considered it advisable to have full committee hearings on the bill by reason of the fact that adjournment is contemplated within the comparatively near future, and there would be a delay if the bill were reported to a subcommittee for hearing and then reported back to the full committee and action taken thereon by the full committee. I suppose there is no objection to that? [No response.] This morning we first want to hear from the Chief of Engineers. After that we will take up new projects, projects which have not been approved by the House. On such new projects the proponents will be the first to speak, the opponents will be heard in rebuttal, and the proponents in surrebuttal. On projects that have already been approved by the House and are in this bill, the opponents will first be heard, then the proponents in rebuttal, and the opponents in surrebuttal. With respect to projects on which hearings have been held in the House I think it would be very well, in the interest of saving time, for those who are addressing themselves to a project to remember that full hearings were held in the House, and the hearings are printed and are accessible to the committee and that it is not necessary to repeat what they have had to say in the House hearings, either for or against the project under consideration. It will be well enough, however, to give a brief summary of either their opposition to or approval of a project, and then if there is any new matter which has been developed and which they wish to call to the attention of the committee, it would be well for them to go into that phase of the matter. We will hear from General Wheeler. STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. R. A. WHEELER CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY Senator OVERTON. I think this is your first appearance before this. committee, is it not, General Wheeler? General WHEELER. Yes; before this committee, in my present position. I was here years ago as a junior officer of the Corps of Engineers. Senator OVERTON. We are very happy to welcome you before the committee. We wish to extend to you our best wishes in your very high and very important position to which you have been assigned. The committee wishes to advise you that we will always be very happy to cooperate with you, and we know that we are going to get full cooperation from you and the Corps of Army Engineers. You may proceed. General WHEELER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to present the projects included in the pending River and Harbor bill. As you know, the Corps of Engineers considers itself the consulting engineers of Congress and, more specifically, of the Committees on Rivers and harbors and Flood Control of the House and the Committee on Commerce of the Senate, and in presenting these reports it is discharging one of its most important functions. As your consulting engineers, we have measured carefully both the costs and the benefits of all the projects in the pending bill, and our thorough analysis and study finds them worthy. In 1927, Congress, with its usual foresight, instructed the Corps of Engineers to conduct a series of basin-wide surveys, as authorized by House Document No. 308, Sixty-ninth Congress, first session, in order that the water resources of the United States would be used to enhance our national wealth. The reports which have been made to Congress as a result of these studies are known as "308" reports in acknowledgment of the authorizing act and are the basis for much of the comprehensive planning for the basin-wide, multiple-purpose projects which have resulted in the ensuing years. Thus, the Tennessee Valley development has followed the broad framework laid down by the "308" report for the Tennessee River Basin as published in House Document No. 328, Seventy first Congress, second session. Similarly, the Bonneville Dam, the McNary Dam, and now the Foster Creek Dam, are progressive steps in the comprehensive development of the vast Columbia River Basin as outlined generally in House Document No. 103, Seventy-third Congress, first session. Again, as a result of these studies, the plan for the comprehensive development of the Savannah River and, as a first step, the construction of the Clark Hill Dam, was authorized in the Flood Control Act approved December 22, 1944. Other examples are available. In the present bill, we take another step in the progressive planning initiated by Congress in 1927. As the major project, among the many important projects in the bill now before this committee, we present a plan for the comprehensive treatment of the Arkansas River, a stream which has been captious and unruly, and violently destructive of our natural resources. After many years of painstaking consideration, we now present for adoption, a plan which will change this vast water course from a consistently destructive force to a restorer of the Nation's wealth, and a means of opening up a section of the country rich not only in natural resources, but rich also in human resourcefulness. I realize that all things cannot be done at the same time. I think that Congress has provided wisely that the projects which grow out of the studies authorized by Congress must first be considered for authorization in order that the wisdom of the plans can be carefully examined and that only subsequent to authorization can appropriations be made in amounts carefully measured by the Appropriations Committees in accordance with the Nation's financial means. However, I know that in 1922, our country was at a temporary halt in its progressive forward strides after the First World War. In the 1930's we were faced with the necessity for a large program of public works. I do not know whether it will again be necessary for the Federal Government to embark on a similar program. I do know that a broad basis of selection, permitting projects to be selected in the proper order of their current importance, will enable me to concentrate the energies of my organization upon those improvements which are the most worth while. As you know, waterway traffic has shown steady growth. In illustration, there has been included by the Committee on Rivers and Harbors of the House, in its report on the pending bill, a graph which shows that for all waterway traffic, the tonnage transported has increased from a low of 7,826,000,000 ton-miles in 1931 to a high of 31,343,000,000 ton-miles in 1944. Thus, the economy inherent in water-borne traffic is making year by year return on the investment in ever-increasing measure. The projects presented in the bill now before you are the result, in each case, of congressional authority to make the study; hearings in the field and consideration by district and division engineers; consideration by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and, when necessary, hearings before that Board; consideration by the Chief of Engineers; review by the governors of affected States; action by the Federal agencies concerned and by the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. Chairman, in considering this procedure I have been thinking about the Big Sandy project, which is the only report presented by the Corps of Engineers and approved by the Rivers and Harbors Čommittee of the House that failed of passage in the House. But I would like to point out that that project went through this same exacting procedure that I have just outlined and was recommended for adoption only after a comparison of the costs versus benefits showed a substantial benefit ratio. Senator OVERTON. Was there opposition before the Board of Engineers to the project, and were the opponents heard? General WHEELER. Yes, sir. Senator OVERTON. Were there hearings before the district engineer in reference to this project, in the field? General WHEELER. Yes, sir. Senator OVERTON. Were opponents given an opportunity to be heard? |