Erath, Comanche, and Hamilton Counties. This is Ed Keller from Stephenville, Tex., Castle Ellis from Comanche, Dick Harbin from Dublin, Tex. Bill Gaines from Dublin is also here but he is not present at the moment. This is Mr. T. D. Craddock of Hamilton. Mr. POAGE. We have other gentlemen from Waco here. We have Mr. Jack Kultgen, former president of the Brazos River Authority, who is presently on the U.S. Study Commission for Water Resources in Texas. He is a citizen of Waco, but in his official capacity he represents the entire southwestern area. Mr. Kultgen has a few words. STATEMENT OF MR. JACK KULTGEN Mr. KULTGEN. Very few. You gentlemen have been kind to us and you have gone right along with this deal. I wish to file this brief statement. Mr. RABAUT. Without objection, your statement will be made a part of the record at this time. (The statement follows:) I am J. H. Kultgen, Waco businessman, past president of the Waco Chamber of Commerce, past president of the Brazos River Authority, a State agency entrusted with the responsibility for the development of the Brazos River and its tributaries. At present, I am serving on the U.S. Study Commission, a Federal Commission, appointed by the President of the United States, to study all water problems in the State of Texas. My purpose today is, briefly, to point out responsibilities of the Brazos River Authority in connection with the Waco project. The Brazos River Authority has been designated by the State of Texas to act on their behalf with the Corps of Engineers regarding the Waco project and accordingly, all contracts necessary to the construction of the Waco Dam have been signed and executed. So that you will not think that we are not doing things for ourselves-the Brazos River Authority is now operating Possum Kingdom Dam, approximately 150 miels north of Waco, on the Brazos, and has under plan a series of power dams between Possum Kingdom and Whitney Dam, which is approximately 40 miles north of Waco on the Brazos. It is necessary that the Brazos River Authority dams be power dams because the only way we have to finance them is through the sale of power. Unlike the Brazos River Authority dams, the Waco Reservoir will not produce power. The Brazos River Authority at this time is more concerned with the conservation of water than with anything else because we are having terrific demands made on us for municipal and irrigation uses. The Brazos River Authority is also concerned with flood control. Floods the past few years have caused heavy damage that a Waco Dam could have prevented, and water which will be desperately needed later is flowing into the Gulf of Mexico. We have agreed to purchase any additional conservation storage in the Wace Reservoir not needed by the city of Waco; and we are in full agreement with the Corps of Engineers on this project. We will coordinate our policies with the Corps of Engineers for the fullest control of the Brazos River and its tributaries to the end that it will provide the greatest possible beneficial use of the water of the river. Thank you. Mr. KULTGEN. I want to thank you kindly for the fine consideration you have given us. Mr. POAGE. This is Mr. Harlan Fentress, publisher of our news papers. Mr. Fentress has met with this committee before and is thoroughly familiar with this program. Mr. Fentress will review it very briefly. Mr. RABAUT. We see these people here year after year. The thought strikes one that it is the same group all the time that is interested in the progress of America. Mr. POAGE. We would point out that in addition to many reliable veterans," we have several who have not been here before. Mr. RABAUT. We have to have new faces because the Old Reaper comes along. STATEMENT OF MR. HARLAN FENTRESS Mr. FENTRESS. I will not belabor the subject because I fully appreciate the necessity for brevity. However, I would like to express our appreciation of your committee's cooperation and that of the Engineers for the fine work that has been going on and which we hope and feel sure will continue. Mr. RABA UT. You are supporting the budget this year? Mr. FENTRESS. Yes, sir. I think the only two points I would like to make particularly are these: No. 1, certainly we hope you will give favorable consideration to the item that is in the budget for this project. Second, if there is any possibility of our expediting the completion of the project, we are certainly gravely interested in that because we are involved in a municipal water supply that can be critical in times of drought. On these two points I will rest my statement. I have a statement which I will file. Mr. RABAUT. Without objection, the statement will be filed at this point in the record. (The statement follows:) My name is H. M. Fentress; I am the publisher of newspapers in Waco, Austin, and Port Arthur, Tex.; am a former president of the Waco Chamber of Commerce and a member of several previous delegations to appear before your committee in connection with the Waco Reservoir project. The history of this project is certainly indicative of the wonderful spirit of cooperation that has existed between this committee, the Corps of Engineers, the Brazos River Authority and the city of Waco. We believe that we are one of the first, if not the first, community to put up the first construction money on a joint project. The $250,000 that the city of Waco turned over to the Corps of Engineers to start construction in 1958 is indicative of the urgency of this project as far as we are concerned. It is rather ironical that after 6 or 7 years of extreme drought, that during the past several years we have been faced with the very flood conditions for which this project was originally designed. The two dams now in operation on the Brazos River upstream from Waco prevented an estimated $24 million in damages. If we had had the Waco Reservoir in operation during this time, better than half the $85 million damage between Waco and the gulf could have been prevented. This, in no uncertain terms, spells out of the reason for the Waco project being the No. 1 priority on the Engineers' list for this watershed. In addition to the flood control aspect of the proposed reservoir, the city of Waco is in need of additional water supply to meet the demands of a community of over 120,000. We have delayed our plans to build a municipal water supply lake in order to participate with the Federal Government in this joint project. The 1960-61 budget, which this committee is now considering, includes $11 million for constructionn on Waco Dam. We not only urge you to approve the present budget figure, but we would also urge that everything be done to assure an early completion of this project. The present plans call for closure of the dam in June of 1963. However, according to our water engineers, it is highly possible that the city of Waco will encounter a severe water shortage problem in 1962. If there is anything that this committee could do to see that sufficient funds are appropriated to insure a closure date late in 1962, we would appreciate it being done. In order that we might show you the urgency of the matter, our present lake, when filled to capacity, represents only a 6-month supply of water for the city of Waco. So you can see that the very slightest drought condition could result in a major crisis for this community of approximately 120,000 peopl Your committee's favorable action in speeding up construction to meet tl 1962 closure date will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Mr. POAGE. We very much appreciate the courtesy of the commit tee. I want to call to your attention this matter, which has bee mentioned time and again. The city of Waco, is itself, paying $6. million, which is a substantial portion of the cost of this projec because the city will use storage in this reservoir. We will pay ou percentage part of the cost of the storage. For that reason we fee it is not entirely a matter of spending Federal money, as some project are-and rightfully. We find no criticism of that, but we would sug gest if this can be speeded up, it will at least in substantial part b paid for by the city as well as the Federal Government. We do appreciate the consideration this committee has given us We do not want to impose on your time. We thank you very much Mr. RABAUT. It is good to see you again. THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 1960. GREAT LAKES HARBORS WITNESSES N. R. DANIELIAN, PRESIDENT, GREAT LAKES-ST. LAWRENCE ASSO CIATION OLIVER A. REYNOLDS, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, CLEVELAND, OHIO Mr. RABAUT. Mr. Danielian, you are here to address yourself to the Great Lakes, a beautiful body of water with which I am well acquainted. Mr. DANIELIAN. I wish the record to show Oliver Reynolds of the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce is here. I have a number of telegrams that we received today which I would like to file for the record. Mr. RABAUT. Identify them and they will be placed in the record at this point. Mr. DANIELIAN. Here is one from John A. Ulinski, executive director, Niagara Frontier Port Authority; one from George Gedeon, mayor of Fairport and president of Lake Geauga Seaway Development Association: John C. Jaworski, mayor, city of Lorain, Ohio. (The telegrams referred to follow :) NIAGARA FRONTIER PORT AUTHORITY, N. R. DANIELIAN, President, Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Association, Heartily endorse your request for design and engineering funds before Subcommittee for Public Works Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, on April 7, 1960. JOHN A. ULINSKI, Executive Director. N. R. DANIELIAN, PAINESVILLE, OHIO, April 6, 1960. President, Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Association, Cafritz Building, Washington, D.O.: Fairport Port Authority urgently requests Committee on Appropriations Pube Works to approve request for appropriations to cover design and engineering costs for Great Lakes harbors. GEORGE GEDEON, Mayor of Fairport, President Lake Geauga Seaway Development LORAIN, OHIO, April 6, 1960. DANIELIAN, President, Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Association, Re hearing on public works appropriation your request for design and englneering appropriation the city of Lorain approves this action and hopes the committee gives this favorable consideration. JOHN C. JAWORSKI, Mr. DANIELIAN. Our organization represents a number of Great Lakes cities and municipalities, industries, and individuals generally interested in the development of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin. I appear here in an unusual proceeding, one that I am afraid my own powers of persuasion perhaps are going to be found lacking in force because I am representing about 20 communities in the Great Lakes area who have an interest in what I am going to propose. By rights, each of these projects could have been represented separately here, and it would have been possible to do so and they would probably be entitled to 5 minutes apiece, which would give them about 100 minutes; but I shall try to present the overall program, saving the committee's time and much expense and effort to the communities involved. There are two phases of this in which we are interested. One is the $30 million proposed budget recommendation for the completion of the Great Lakes connecting channels. That is in the budget. It is satisfactory to us, and we hope the committee will keep it in so that the work may proceed and be completed by 1962. Mr. RABAUT. Are you here in support of the budget? Mr. DANIELIAN. Yes. It should be noted that this Budget Bureau recommendation is $4,300,000 less than what General Rumaggi said last year would be needed for this year. So that the Army Engineers' request must have been trimmed by close to 14 percent by the Budget. So that I hope the committee will take cognizance of this fact and support the budget recommendation unchanged. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have this statement that I prepared (Mr. Danielian's statement follows:) My name is N. R. Danielian. I am president of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Association with offices at 821 Cafritz Building, Washington, D.C. This organization is a private, nonpartisan, nonprofit association organized under the laws of the State of Illinois. Our membership consists of county and municipal governments, private industrial and commercial enterprises, as well as individuals in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence tributary area interested in its continued economic expansion and the improvement of its navigation facilities and harbors. I am appearing before you today in support of an appropriation of $30 million, provided in the budget for fiscal year 1961, to continue work on the deepening and improvement of the Great Lakes connecting channels; and in addition, respectfully request your favorable consideration on an appropriation to cover design and engineering costs for the improvement of certain harbors in the Great Lakes States. Testifying before this committee last year Maj. Gen. Louis J. Rumaggi, division engineer, North Central Division, Corps of Engineers, in answer to a question as to how much should be provided for this project for the next 4 years, stated: "Fiscal year 1961, $34,300,000; fiscal year 1962, $35,600,000; fiscal year 1963, $3,200,000; and fiscal year 1964, $1,248,000." Please note that the $30 million provided in the budget is $4,300,000 less than the amount Major General Rumaggi estimated was required for fiscal year 1961 in testimony last year before this committee. It appears that the Budget Bureau has cut the request of the Corps of Engineers by almost 15 percent. We respectfully request this committee to approve the proposed recommendation of the Budget Bureau for $30 million and to continue the transfer authority to the Chief of Engineers. We also respectfully request this committee to consider favorably an appropriation of $1,423,400 to cover design and engineering costs for 19 harbor and navigation improvements in the Great Lakes States, which are in the pending rivers and harbors bill, in the event Senate authorization is not completed before the House and Senate Appropriations Committees act on the civil funetions appropriations for 1961. This sum to be made available contingent on authorization being completed prior to the expenditure of the funds. Attached is an analysis of all the propects in the Great Lakes States which will be in this bill. There is a precedent for this in the fact that, in fiscal year 1957, $5 million was made available for the Great Lakes connecting channels before authoriza tion was completed. This farsighted action by the respective Appropriations Committees made it possible to advance the construction period of this project by at least a year. Time is of the essence in this matter. The simple and startling fact is that as of now, even though the seaway is completed and the connecting channels project advanced to such an extent that their effective use is scheduled for 1962, there is not a single harbor in the Great Lakes deep enough to accommodate ships loaded to the full draft of these new waterways. It is vital and urgent that these harbors be improved as speedily as possible. Until they are dredged to 27 feet, it will not be possible for the great Middle West to derive the full advantages and benefits from the seaway and the connecting channels in which our country will have invested over a quarter of a billion dollars. For example, it is estimated that for the Ashtabula Harbor, by a substantial margin, the largest iron ore receiving port on the great Lakes, the economic loss resulting from the present inadequate depth of the harbor is from 6 to 10 percent, depending upon the size of the particular vessel, whether the loss is stated in terms of ore tonnage or of operating costs; and this economic loss can be expected to exceed 10 percent as larger ships enter the ore-carrying trade. What is true of Ashtabula is also true in varying degrees of the other ore-receiving ports on the Great Lakes. We therefore sincerely hope that the committee will give this request its favorable consideration and approve an appropriation of $1,423,400 on a contingent basis, so that once the projects are authorized, the Corps of Engineers may proceed to design them. |