The report on Oswego Harbor, N. Y., was authorized by the River and Harbor Act approved March 2, 1945. This report covers the proposed east harbor only. A final report under the authorization will be submitted at a later date. Oswego Harbor, N. Y., is on the south shore of Lake Ontario at the mouth of Oswego River. It is 59 miles east of Rochester-Charlotte Harbor and 41 miles south of Sackets Harbor. The harbor comprises the lower 2,500 feet of Oswego River, which has been improved for deep-draft navigation. The improvement authorized by Congress provides in part for an outer west breakwater 4,478 feet long; for an arrowhead rubble-mound breakwater system, the west arrowhead breakwater 2,700 feet long and the east about 2,200 feet long; for dredging to a depth of 21 feet at low-water datum in the outer harbor east of the Lackawanna coal dock and between the harbor lines in the Oswego River north of the north line of Seneca Street; for dredging the outer harbor west of the east side of the Lackawanna coal dock to a depth of 21 feet in soft material and 22 feet in hard material at low-water datum; for the abandonment of the east inner breakwater; for elimination from the existing project of the east outer breakwater which has never been constructed; and for removal of the upper and lower islands in the Oswego River. Commerce of the harbor, exclusive of that via the New York State Barge Canal for the years 1937 to 1946, inclusive, fluctuated between a minimum of 457,500 tons in 1937 and a maximum of 2,111,300 tons in 1945, and averaged 1,500,850 tons annually for that period. During 1946, lake commerce of the harbor totaled 1,458,400 tons, principally of coal, wheat, pig, iron, and cement. During that year, vessel traffic consisted of in-bound and out-bound trips as follows: 345 by steamers drawing up to 22 feet, 197 by motor vessels drawing up to 16 feet, and 568 by small gasoline boats and barges drawing less than 12 feet. Oswego, with a population of 22,100, is the county seat of Oswego County which is primarily an agricultural area. Its industries include the production of matches, oil-well machinery, paper, paper bags, rayon, packing machines, boilers, engines, pumps, small tools, brass and iron castings, valves, window shades, steam fittings, mill products, office specialties, textiles, yarns, electrical appliances, candy, and soy meal and oil. The harbor is a distribution center for petroleum products, coal, and cement. The improvement desired by local interests is extension of the harbor breakwater to the east to enclose a terminal proposed to be constructed by the St. Regis Paper Co., and the provision of the necessary channel thereto. It is claimed that the improvement would permit the receipt of soybeans, woodpulp, pulpwood, and coal by water at, and shipment of processed products from, the St. Regis wharf, and reduce transportation costs. The district and division engineers recommended as the most suitable plan of improvement: (1) The construction of an east breakwater approximately parallel to the shore, 10 feet above low-water datum for 2,300 feet and to 12 feet above low-water datum for 2,600 feet; (2) Removal of approximately 1,020 linear feet of the inner end of the present east arrowhead breakwater; and (3) Dredging a channel 250 feet wide with depths of 18 feet in earth and 19 feet in rock to and including an irregularly shaped basin of the same depth at the easterly end of the harbor; subject to certain conditions of local cooperation. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors concurs in the view that the improvement would provide additional harbor area needed for an anticipated expansion in commerce. Since the transportation savings on wood pulp, coal, and soybeans substantially exceed the costs, the Board concludes that the improvement is economically justified. The Board recommends the improvement subject to certain provisions of local cooperation. In accordance with law a copy of the proposed report of the Chief of Engineers was furnished the Governor of New York for comment. In response thereto the following telegram, dated April 26, 1948, was received: Lt. Gen. R. A. WHEELER, Chief of Engineers, War Department, Washington, D. C.: Representing the Honorable Thomas E. Dewey, Governor, State of New York, I am heartily endorsing the approved report of the Board of Engineers pertaining to the expansion and improvement of the harbor breakwater at Oswego, N. Y. This is long overdue. Will be of extreme benefit to the industries adjacent thereto. CHARLES H. SELLS, Superintendent of Public Works. Mr. Chairman, as previously stated, the comments of the Bureau of the Budget have not as yet been received. The Chief of Engineers in his proposed report concurs in the views and recommendations of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. He recommends modification of the existing project for Oswego Harbor, N. Y., to provide for an east harbor consisting of: (1) A breakwater approximately parallel to shore, extending easterly from the existing east arrowhead breakwater, 10 feet above low-water datum for 2,300 feet and to 12 feet above low-water datum for 2,600 feet; (2) removal of approximately 1,020 feet of the inner end of the existing east arrowhead breakwater; and (3) a channel 250 feet wide extending easterly and terminating in an irregularly shaped basin at the easterly end of the harbor, all to a project depth of 18 feet in earth and 19 in rock; all generally in accordance with the plans of the district engineer and with such modifications as in the discretion of the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Engineers may be deemed advisable. The improvement is recommended subject to the conditions that local interests give assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that they will (a) provide without cost to the United States all necessary lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for construction of the project and subsequent maintenance, as and when required; (b) hold and save the United States free from damage due to the construction and subsequent maintenance of the project; (c) construct a wharf about 1,300 feet long, including the necessary extension of the water intake line, in accordance with plans approved by the Chief of Engineers, and construct handling and storage facilities of such design and capacity as to insure expeditious handling and adequate storage for the woodpulp required by the paper mills in the vicinity, and for the prospective commerce in soybeans; (d) dredge and maintain the area between the project limit and wharf face to project depth; and (e) agree to receive, handle, and store, at reasonable and equal terms to all, the wood-pulp requirements of paper mills in the vicinity. The estimated cost to United States for construction is $7,838,000. The cost to local interests for compliance with conditions of local cooperation is estimated at $1,307,000. The total cost of construction is estimated at $9,145,000. The total annual carrying charge is estimated at $415,200 which includes $28,200 for maintenance. The annual benefits consisting of annual savings in transportation costs are estimated by the district engineer at $584,300 of which $519,600 is on wood pulp, $9,300 is on coal, and $55,400 is on soybeans. The indicated benefit-cost ratio is 1.41. There was no opposition to the proposed improvement expressed to the Board. Senator MALONE. What will be the increased maintenance to the Federal Government by virtue of this project? Colonel JEWETT. The increased maintenance to the Federal Government is estimated at $28,200 annually. Senator MALONE. What is the maintenance at this time? Colonel JEWETT. The annual maintenance, sir, at the present time, is $34,500. Senator McCLELLAN. And how much will that be increased? Senator MALONE. What do you mean by the total annual carrying charge of $400,000? Colonel JEWETT. That represents the annual charge for maintenance, the interest on the investment, and the amortization cost to the United States over the estimated economic life of the project which is 50 years. Senator MALONE. What was the benefit-cost ratio? Colonel JEWETT. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.41. Senator MALONE. Any questions, Senator Chavez? Senator MALONE. Senator McClellan? Senator MCCLELLAN. No. Senator MALONE. I think that completes this Oswego Harbor project. Representative FULLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude by thanking you and your committee for the privilege of appearing before you this morning. I know you are very busy. Senator MALONE. We are very glad to have you, and this will be considered by the committee. The committee will stand in recess until 3:00 o'clock this afternoon. (Whereupon, at 11: 15 a. m., the committee recessed until 3:00 p. m., the same day.) RIVERS AND HARBORS--FLOOD CONTROL EMERGENCY ACT MONDAY, MAY 10, 1948 UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FLOOD CONTROL AND RIVERS Washington, D. C. FLOOD CONTROL-LACKAWAXEN RIVER, Pa. The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to call, in room 412 Senate Office Building, Senator George W. Malone, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding. Present: Senators Malone (chairman of the subcommittee) and Martin. Present also: Senator Myers; E. W. Bassett, engineer; Eloise Porter, assistant clerk. Senator Martin (presiding). The hearing will be in order. Senator Malone, who is chairman of this subcommittee, has been delayed at another meeting, but in order to avoid taking too much of the time of those present, this morning, we will open the hearing. This hearing is on S. 1908, authorizing the construction of floodcontrol work on the Lackawaxen River, Pa., and the text of the bill will be inserted in the record at this point. (The bill, S. 1908, is as follows:) [S. 1908, 80th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL Authorizing the construction of flood-control work on the Lackawaxen River, Pennsylvania Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the project for flood control on the Lackawaxen River recommended in the report of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, dated July 12, 1946, is hereby adopted and authorized at an estimated cost of $6,802,000 and shall be prosecuted under the direction of the Secretary of the Army and the supervision of the Chief of Engineers, in accordance with the plan recommended in such report and subject to the conditions set forth therein. SEC. 2. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be needed to carry out the provisions of this Act. LACKAWAXEN RIVER BASIN, PA. Location. The Lackawaxen River rises in the northwestern part of Wayne County and flows generally southeast for 33 miles to Hawley, thence eastward 16 miles to its confluence with the Delaware River at Lackawaxen in Pike County, Pa. The river drains an area of 588 square miles in northeastern Pennsylvania. Report authorized by.-Resolution of the Committee on Flood Control, House of Representatives, adopted October 8, 1942. Printed as House Document No. 133, Eightieth Congress, first session. Existing project. There is no Federal project for flood protection in the Lackawaxen River Basin. The Work Projects Administration constructed flood walls at Honesdale and Hawley in 1937-38, but these structures have been damaged by floods and are now ineffective. The State of Pennsylvania has done considerable channel clearing along the streams and local interests have constructed several small channel dams in the basin, Plan of recommended improvement, Dyberry Reservoir.-The Dyberry Dam site is located on Dyberry Creek about 2.7 miles above its mouth at Honesdale, and would consist of an earth embankment 1,300 feet long and 94 feet high. The reservoir would control 65 square miles of drainage area, have a capacity of 20,800 acre-feet, and would inundate about 700 acres. Thirty-four families would be affected. Prompton Reservoir.-The Prompton Dam site is located on the Lackawaxen River about 0.5 mile above Prompton, and provides for an earth embankment 700 feet long and 102 feet high. The reservoir would control the run-off from 60 square miles, would have a capacity of 19,200 acre-feet, and would inundate approximately 700 acres. Seventeen families would be affected. Estimated cost to United States.-Dyberry Reservoir, $6,000,000; Prompton Reservoir, $6,150,000. The War Department Civil Appropriatons Act of 1948 included $200,000 for preparation of detailed plans for this project. Local cooperation. Removal of three low dams at Honesdale at an estimated cost of $5,000. This work has been done. Annual cost of maintenance to United States, $12,000. Benefits. The principal areas subject to flood damage consist of the valley of the main stem between Hawley and Seeleyville and the lower 2 miles of Dyberry Creek. This section contains most of the industrial and commercial establishments and large residential areas of four towns. Railroad and highway facilities are subject to considerable damage and interruption of traffic by large floods. The flood of May 1942 caused damages estimated at $6,202,000 within the basin, and 24 lives were lost. Damages from the flood of March 1936 were estimated at $570,000. Had the Dyberry and Prompton Reservoirs been in operation the stage of the flood of 1936 would have been reduced essentially to the elevation at whic hdamage begins at Hawley, and the stage of the 1942 flood to the no-damage stage at Honesdale. The annual benefits are estimated at approximately $440,000, and the benefit to cost ratio is 0.80. Although the monetary benefits do not equal the estimated annual costs, the project will provide a high degree of protection to the principal damage centers, provide protection against future loss of life from floods, and substantially improve the general welfare of the communities. Senator MARTIN. First we will have a statement from General Wheeler. STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. R. A. WHEELER, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; ACCOMPANIED BY COL. H. C. GEE, CORPS OF ENGINEERS General WHEELER. Thank you, Senator Martin. During the course of these hearings detailed information will be presented by various members of my staff concerning the projects which the Corps of Engineers has been authorized to report upon by previous congressional action. I consider it appropriate at this time to give your committee an up to date report on the status of the over-all flood-control program throughout the Nation. The first four months of 1948 have brought destructive floods in many of the river basins in the United States. It would appear to the casual observer that damages caused by floods in our various river basins have not appreciably decreased since the inauguration of the Federal flood-control program authorized by Congress in 1936. However, a careful examination of the records will show conclusively that Federal funds expended to date in the flood-control construction program represents a very sound investment for the people in the United |