Mr. RANKIN. I would if I had my way. [Applause.]

Mr. TOWNSEND. Now, very correctly, you have made reference to the Kanawha River and the Ohio River

Mr. RANKIN (interposing). I am not objecting to that development, understand.

Mr. TOWNSEND. You have undertaken, in a way, to compare the Big Sandy Valley with that of the Ohio Valley.

Mr. RANKIN. No; the principle is the same.

It

Mr. TOWNSEND. I don't think so. Let me point out to you what I think is the outstanding difference between the Ohio Valley and the Big Sandy Valley. The Ohio River is a natural waterway. carried the freight and the products of those who lived along its banks before there was ever a lock and dam in it. And they carried these products the year 'round, and they had enough water to carry them. They didn't have to lock the water back up the stream to float the products down.

Mr. RANKIN. But they had to build locks and dams.

Mr. TOWNSEND. To increase the amount of products carried. But here you have to build a canal and furnish the water before you can get anything carried over it. Now, Mr. Congressman, nobody doubts your sincerity. I am sure I do not. I have read a good deal about you in the newspapers, and it is usually good reading [laughter], but, in my judgment, usually there isn't any more comparison between the Ohio Valley and the Big Sandy Valley than there is between day and night.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. You mine a great quantity of coal in your section of the Kanawha Valley, do you not?

Mr. TOWNSEND. We mine more coal in West Virginia than any other State in the Union, and much of it in my section; yes.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. How do the rates in the Kanawha area compare with the freight rates in this area here under discussion?

Mr. TOWNSEND. I cannot speak from any knowledge that I have from making an investigation of that question, but I understand they are comparable. Take the Kanawha Valley, for example, it is only recently that the Kanawha River was increased to a 9-foot stage. Now, the Kanawha Valley is an open valley, The Kanawha River, like the Ohio, has been a waterway, products were carried over it before there was ever any thought of locking and damming that stream, and it had plenty of water in it, but with all the opportunity that the Kanawha Valley has today for using that waterway, in 1943, after the 9-foot stage was completed, only 3,000,000 tons of coal was carried down that river. Now, how on earth you can get 8,300,000 tons of coal out of the Big Sandy and you can't get but 3,000,000 out of the Kanawha is something that I cannot comprehend or understand. I am sure Mr. May can tell you all about it.

Mr. RANKIN. Let me call your attention to the fact, though, that when that waterway was provided it cut the freight in that area to 62 cents and left it at 87 cents on the other road. Sɔ it means that was at least a 25-percent differential. The railroad made that reduction, and therefore they probably increased the tonnage carried.

Mr. DONDERO. So far I have maintained a rather eloquent silence in order not to disturb you, but I would like to ask, That 3,000,000 tons was out of what total?

Mr. TOWNSEND. That would be hard for me to say, but it would go up into many millions of tons, because it would come from the head of the Kanawha River clear down below Charleston, a distance of 50 to 75 miles.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. How far is the Kanawha area from the Big Sandy?

Mr. TOWNSEND. By air line it is about 100 miles, I should say. These gentlemen here say 60 miles.

I think the railroads are equipped to carry all the coal from the Big Sandy Valley that will ever be produced, and carry it at a reasonable rate.

up

It seems to me and I don't want to say anything that might remotely sound to be disrespectful of anybody, but it seems to me that it is begging the question to say that we have got to build this canal in order to reduce the rates on the railroads. That just doesn't stack with me. That may be my fault, but it does not. If this Government is powerless through its Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate rates and to accord the producers and carriers of coal a proper rate for handling their product, then, as I said a moment ago, a more appropriate bill, in my opinion, would be one to revise or abolish the Interstate Commerce Commission. If it is now the useless instrumentality of government that some people seem to think it is, there is no use for it.

The question has been before this committee as to who was opposed to this proposition and who was in favor of it. Mr. Raney told you about his experiences over on the Levisa Fork in the State of Kentucky, in the coal mines over there. I know something about the coal mines on the Tug River. Tug River marks the dividing line or the boundary line between Kentucky and West Virginia.

I believe it to be true, and I would not undertake to state to this committee if I did not believe it to be true, that there is just as much unanimity on the part of the coal miners against the building of this canal as there is unanimity in that organization today against temporarily operating the coal mines. If anybody thinks for one moment that the official representatives of the United Mine Workers organization do not speak for them, then they have another guess coming to them, and this proposed canal is opposed by the coal miners, more than 100,000 of them who will be directly and indirectly affected if this project should be built. And when it is completed, if it is built, and as time takes its toll, someday the citizenship of this country, and particularly the part of it that is affected, will wake up to the fact that they not only have a dead horse on their hands but a white elephant in the way of maintenance.

Now, let us reduce this question of how it affects the coal miners down a little further. I have heard the statement made that it would not affect the coal miner, but the fact is it does affect him in more ways than one. Don't forget that the railroads of the United States consume about 25 percent of all the coal that is produced in this country. Applying that as a measure, say that by the building of the Big Sandy Canal you do take 8,300,000 tons of coal out per year by water-and I can't comprehend that, along with many other things in figures in recent years-but if they do take out 8,300,000 tons, and the railroads of the country don't haul it, you will have lost

2,075,000 tons of coal that the miner ought to be producing and that he won't be producing if this canal is built, less whatever coal is used in the boats that run the canal.

Let us trace that down a little further. There are about 25,000 coal miners that will be directly affected by this project. Each coal miner would lose 83 tons a year." If he can mine 10 tons a day it would take him 8.3 days to mine 83 tons. Then if you multiply 25,000 coal miners by 8,000 tons you lose 200,000 manpower-days a year, which is no small item for the coal miners.

That is only part of the picture. There is one other thing that I want to call your attention to, that has been brought to my attention. I refer to this matter because Mr. Sam Cady, who is president of District 30, United Mine Workers of America, cannot be here, and I have been asked to refer to the letter written by the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky-two letters written by him in connection with this matter. The endorsement of this project by the Governor of Kentucky is a qualified endorsement, if it may be called an endorsement at all. The first letter that the Governor wrote stated this:

We somewhat reluctantly concur in the recommendations that navigation facilities be provided on the Big Sandy River, Tug Fork, and Levisa Fork, in and to the extent described in the report of the district engineer. Our concurrence is based on the following considerations:

That the district engineer has amply justified, the plan from an economic standpoint.

Second, that the coal-mining interests who form a large proportion of the population of the affected counties have appeared to be unanimously in favor of the plan.

Now, at the time the Governor made that statement he did not have before him the full information. He says the evidence developed at the public hearings showed no opposition except by the railroad interests, who invariably oppose any Federal aid to navigation which they feel is inimical to their interests. He did not have correct information before him with reference to that.

Now, in reference to the letter to Mr. Sam Cady, who unfortunately is not here, he went down to see the Governor about this matter and later the Governor wrote him this letter, and when you put these two letters together you can very clearly see that the Governor of Kentucky's endorsement of this proposition is a qualified endorsement, if it can be construed to be an endorsement at all. This letter reads:

Mr. SAM CADY,

President, District 30, UMWA, Lexington, Ky.

DEAR MR. CADY: Unfortunately I do not have time to study this question, and prefer to let the matter stand where it is.

That is, the question of the canalization of the Big Sandy.

It seems to me that if the parties opposing this are sufficiently represented to bring out all the facts, so that the merits of the case will not be overlooked, as I expressed to you, the attitude of the State government toward these river projects is simply for the protection of the State's property and highways.

That is his interest in it. That is all that has been submitted to us, and that is all the action that has been taken. A copy of that report was presented to the engineers and also to the organization favoring and to the organization opposing the project.

87050-46-18

I think those two letters are entirely reconcilable and that the Governor of the State of Kentucky has not in any way committed himself to this proposition. I thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Thank you very much, Mr. Townsend. Mr. LAWSON. Mr. Chairman, at this time I desire to introduce and present Mr. George Dunglinson, of Roanoke, Va., vice president in charge of traffic, Norfolk & Western Railway Co.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE DUNGLINSON, JR., VICE PRESIDENT IN CHARGE OF TRAFFIC, NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY CO., ROANOKE, VA.

Mr. DUNGLINSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is George Dunglinson, Jr. I am vice president in charge of traffic of the Norfolk & Western Railway Co., with offices in Roanoke, Va.

It seems necessary, though personally distasteful, at the start to mention something about myself in order to show the background from which I shall analyze and criticize the report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors of the War Department. I am a graduate of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute with the degree of bachelor of science in mining engineering. From 1904 to 1908 I was a practicing mining engineer with offices at Goodwill, W. Va., and Bramwell, W. Va. In 1908 I was employed by the Norfolk & Western Railway and have been with this company continually since that year. From 1908 to 1917 I was a member, later chairman, of the car allotment commission, where my duties required a personal knowledge of the coal resources, the mine development, and the productive capacities of all coal mines on the railway. From 1917 to 1936, first with the title of "assistant to general manager" and later with the title of "manager, fuel department," I was in supervisory charge of the coal mines owned and operated by the railway for the production of railway fuel, these mines producing over 1,000,000 tons of coal annually. In 1936 I was appointed assistant vice president, and in 1938 vice president in charge of traffic.

Continually during my employment with the railway over a period of 38 years I have studied the coal resources of the territory served by the Norfolk & Western and neighboring territory, making reports as to conditions relative to new development and railway extensions. My present duties include the supervision of coal traffic, coal development, freight rates, and cooperative efforts with coal producers and users in advancing the mutual interests of the coal and railroad industries. So I am addressing this committee from the background of a constant and intimate and studious experience during the greater part of my business career on matters which are fundamental factors in the problem before you.

The report of the Board of Engineers, dated December 10, 1945, based on survey of Big Sandy River and Tug and Levisa Forks for flood control and navigation by the United States Engineer Office, recommends a modernized canalization of Big Sandy River and its forks, the Levisa Fork and the Tug Fork, basing this recommendation primarily on

(a) Large recoverable coal resources directly accessible to the project;

(b) Prospective coal commerce of 8,300,000 tons annually for the waterway; and

(c) A ratio of annual costs to annual benefits of 1.0 to 1.6 based on savings in transportation charges from source to destination.

It is my purpose to show that the estimate of coal resources directly accessible to the waterway is excessive; that the prospective coal commerce that can reasonably be expected is far short of the amount stated in the report; and that the ratio of annual costs to annual benefits would be unfavorable to the project.

The Board of Engineers in its report when speaking of coal reserves, prospective coal traffic, and savings, refers to the voluminous report of the district engineer, in some cases modifying the findings of the district engineer's report. In the short time at my disposal, as well as not to tire this committee with details of geological, engineering, and mining facts and deductions showing inaccuracies and misleading statements in the report of the district engineer and the reports of his consultants, I must necessarily confine myself to a brief discussion of the more important basic problems of this canalization project.

The coal resources within 10 miles of the proposed waterway was estimated by the district engineer to be 2,307,000,000 tons of high volatile coal, economically available for water transportation. The Board, after hearings at which competent engineers representing opponents of the canal project stated their findings, concludes that the minable resources within the 10-mile zone are over 1,500,000,000 tons.

It must be clearly borne in mind that these estimated reserves within 10 miles of the waterway are merely the mathematical computations of tonnage reserves from a geological standpoint and conveys no information whatever as to the accessibility of the reserves to the waterway from the practical standpoint of ownership, cost of transportation, interference by exhausted, abandoned, or barren areas, and like factors which affect the final application of these tonnages to probable traffic on the waterway. The practical matters of ownership, property lines, interferences in transporting, the method and cost of transportation are not given appropriate and analytical study necessary for correct deductions anywhere in the report of the district engineer or in the report of the Board of Engineers. However, the Board realizes all the coal reserves within 10 miles of the proposed waterway cannot be potential traffic to the canal, and without any supporting data

concludes that the minable coal reserves adjacent to the waterway which can be transported by barge with a favorable loading differential amounts to about 1,000,000,000 tons.

Unfortunately the Board does not divide this reserve tonnage as between that tributary to the proposed canal on Tug Fork and to the proposed canal on Levisa Fork. The district engineer allocates 95 percent of his estimated reserve tonnage to the Levisa Fork and 41 percent to the Tug Fork. Applying these same percentages, there would be, according to the Board's report, 950,000,000 tons on the Levisa Fork and 410,000,000 tons on the Tug Fork of minable coal reserves adjacent to the waterways thereon which could be transported by barge with a favorable loading differential.