but we feel that our allocation is proper and it is based on a cost estimate from our estimate and one from the Department of Highways of the State of Louisiana for the replacement of the bridge.

Mr. BALDWIN. You mean the Department of Commerce felt the State should contribute a greater amount for the cost of the bridge? Mr. MCRAE. I believe that that was their main point, Mr. Baldwin. Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you.

Mr. JONES. The next project, Grand Isle and vicinity, Louisiana.

GRAND ISLE AND VICINITY, LOUISIANA

Mr. MCRAE. Grand Isle and vicinity appears at page 118 of the Senate report.

Grand Isle sector of the Louisiana coastline lies about 50 miles south of New Orleans. The low land elevations are subject to inundation damage during hurricane storms.

The Chief of Engineers recommends construction of levees and appurtenant works to protect the area between Golden Meadow and Larose at an estimated Federal cost of $5,500,000 subject to certain items of local cooperation including a cash contribution of $823,000. Local interests have indicated a willingness to comply with the requirements. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.3.

The State of Louisiana and Federal agencies have commented favorably. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of the report to Congress. However, it has requested that further review of the economics for the project be made prior to the request for construction funds.

Mr. JONES. Any questions?

Mr. BALDWIN. Yes. I want to ask a question on this Bureau of the Budget comment. They are implying that the benefits have been overstated, because they feel that those listed as land enhancement benefits are basically just the same thing as what you already gave credit for in value of flood damages.

Then I see, according to the summary in the Senate report, that the Bureau commented that elimination of the benefits and evaluation of the project on current interest rates and prices would result in a benefit-cost ratio of 1.05.

If I understand you correctly, then, even if their comments as to duplication were taken into consideration and the supposed duplication was eliminated, it would still have a favorable benefit-cost ratio? Mr. MCRAE. That is correct.

Mr. JONES. The next project.

MORGAN CITY AND VICINITY, LA.

Mr. MCRAE. "Morgan City and vicinity, La." It is page 119 of the Senate report.

The Morgan City sector of the Louisiana coast lies in the lower Atchafalaya River Basin about 70 miles west of New Orleans. Existing levees have been overtopped and severe damages were experienced. Also, unprotected lowlands are inundated and suffer extensive property damage during storms.

The Chief of Engineers recommends construction of new levees and enlargement of existing levees at an estimated Federal cost of

$3,049,000 subject to certain items of local cooperation including a cash contribution of $248,000. Local interests have indicated a willingness to comply with the requirements. The benefit-to-cost ratio

is 2.5.

The State of Louisiana and Federal agencies have commented favorably. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of the report to Congress.

(The statement of Congressman Edward E. Willis follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWIN E. WILLIS, MEMBER OF CONGRESS, FROM LOUISIANA

Mr. Chairman, it is most heartening and gratifying for me and for many thousands of my constituents to note that after long years of study and research by the Corps of Engineers and by other Federal agencies, two important hurricane protection projects are now ready for final congressional action. I refer, of course, to the Grand Isle and vicinity and Morgan City and vicinity projects which, as you know, have already been approved by the Senate Committee on Public Works, and on which I have been invited to testify today.

The building of the levees, dikes, and other structures called for in these projects will undoubtedly save many lives and many millions of dollars in property in the future. Thousands of people whose lives and property will be enhanced by the projects have been waiting patiently for several years for that Congress which would extend to them much-needed protection from hurricanes and from the tidal waves which usually accompany such storms. With final approval will come the realization on the part of these constituents that the Federal Government is not only big but has a big heart as well, and that in times of difficulty this Government comes to the rescue of those of its citizens who happen to be at the mercy of the forces of nature.

The area which these projects are intended to protect is in many ways similar to the low countries of Europe, where extensive systems of dikes, locks, and levees prevent inundation by the North Sea. As in the low countries, there are hundreds of thousands of acres of good fertile land which are only a few inches above sea level. However, in much of the area affected by these two programs there are no dikes or levees to keep even the normal tides out-much less the tidal waves which accompany hurricanes and which cause tremendous havoc in the

area.

The danger to life and property in these areas does not occur only on an occasional, basis, such as in the case of certain rivers where flooding might occur once in a decade; rather it is on an annual basis, and sometimes flooding occurs several times a year. Often, this happens so suddenly and with so little warning that the people have scarcely enough time to get themselves to the safety of higher land. They are forced to leave their homes and their other property behind, not knowing whether on their return all their earthly possessions might have been washed away by storm and sea.

In many ways these projects will fulfill the ancient proverb which states that "a stitch in time saves nine." Investments of $5 million in Federal funds in the Grand Isle and vicinity project could well save $50 million in relief funds which might be needed in the area following a major hurricane and tidal wave such as the one which demolished Cameron, La., in the late 1950's, and drowned over 500 Louisiana citizens who could not escape their homes before the storm hit. The $4 million investment, about $3 million of it Federal, in the Morgan City and vicinity project will bring long-needed protection to an important segment of Louisiana's offshore oil and shipbuilding industries. Tens of millions of dollars in industrial investment vital to this country's offshore oil supplies will for the first time feel the security that is so important to its continued growth.

Both in the Morgan City and Grand Isle-Lockport-Golden Meadow areas we find major centers of Louisiana's shrimping industry. The shipyards, the ice and cold storage plants, the seafood processing plants, the machine shops and servicing plants on which this vital industry is based and on which thousands depend for their livelihoods are all at the mercy of the tides. Extensive gas and oilfields in the area, as well as the numerous local businesses which support them, all find themselves in the same predicament.

32-529-65-pt. 1- 8

Inundation of this kind which occurs in this area not only causes millions of dollars in property damage but creates severe health hazards as well. Almost annually there is a major disruption of business activity and of community life. A tremendous burden occurs on local public funds which are needed for other worthwhile projects of all sorts but which must constantly be tapped instead for repair work and for rehabilitation following hurricanes and other flooding. These two projects will, in effect, be protecting the Achilles' heel of areas which have great potential commercially and industrially but which year after year have been dealt crippling blows with such ferocity and such regularity that they have never been able to reach their full potential.

As the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors indicates in its report of January 13, 1964, over 150 hurricanes have battered the Louisiana coast since records have been kept on the subject-in other words, approximately during the last 150 years. It would be my guess that the great majority of these storms have worked their damage mainly on the two areas covered in these projects. The damage has not only been in terms of actual destruction of existing facilities, but has been just as much in terms of industrial and economic development that have stayed out of the area because of the constant threat of damage by flooding. Creation of a situation in which there is no such threat will certainly bring about a much more favorable cost-benefit ratio than the ones now estimated, for the area will then be able to offer protected land on which industry and commercial enterprise of all sorts can locate with relative safety from flooding by the Gulf of Mexico.

To my disappointment these projects were not cleared for legislative action last year; and just as adjournment came along last fall, so did Hurricane Hilda. As the members of the committee probably know, south Louisiana is still trying to recover from the tens of millions of dollars of damage and priceless loss of life caused by that storm. As fate would have it, a substantial part of the damage caused by Hurricane Hilda was suffered in the very area to be affected by the two proposed projects.

This is not to suggest that approval last year would have prevented these losses in lives and property, because even with approval last year, construction would not yet have taken place. However, it is to say that the earliest possible action on the project is needed so that in the future the damage caused by another hurricane such as Hilda might be prevented. For each year that completion of either of these projects is delayed, there is a virtual certainty that at least one more hurricane will ravage each of the areas involved.

It is my expectation that the benefit which will immediately accrue from these two projects will be so substantial and so impressive that other similar projects which have heretofore not been approved for lack of a satisfactory estimate of cost-benefit ratio will be reevaluated and approved.

Mr. JONES. The next project.

QUACHITA RIVER, MONROE, LA.

Mr. MCRAE. The Ouachita River, Monroe, La.; page 124 of the Senate report.

Monroe, La., is situated on the left bank of the Ouachita River between Vicksburg, Miss., and Shreveport, La. The city is partially protected by a floodwall which had a 1,750 foot gap in it. It should be closed.

The Chief of Engineers recommends closure of the gap with a concrete floodwall along the top of the river bank at an estimated Federal cost of $520,000 subject to certain items of local cooperation. Local interests have indicated a willingness to comply with the requirements. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 3.2.

The Federal agencies favor the project. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of the report to Congress. The State of Louisiana is favorable to the closure but requests consideration be given to construction of an alternate plan considered by the

reporting officers but not recommended. This alternate would place the wall riverward of a row of buildings on the top of the bank. Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. JONES. Mr. Everett.

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. McRae, what is the difference in the plans that the State of Louisiana has suggested to this plan that the corps has recommended?

Mr. McRAE. The recommended plan would be on top of the riverbank and across about 10 buildings on the upper end of the project. Mr. EVERETT. What are the differences in the cost of the two proposals, the State of Louisiana and also the Corps of Engineers?

Mr. MCRAE. The Federal cost for the recommended plan is $520,000. The plan that the State suggested would have a total cost of $1.240.000.

Mr. EVERETT. In other words, about twice as much?

Mr. MCRAE. Yes.

Mr. EVERETT. Could you give me an idea of some of the costs which have been incurred by local interests in the recent years to provide emergency closure during these floods?

Mr. MCRAE. I do not have the cost figure, Mr. Everett, on the cost of closing that gap. We can supply that for the record.

Mr. EVERETT. Well, they had to be closed in 1945 and several times since, have they not?

Mr. MCRAE. Yes, it has been closed more than once.

Mr. EVERETT. If you will furnish it for the record, I will certainly appreciate it, and I thank you.

The information follows:)

Local costs to close gap: 1945, $60,000; 1948, $50,000.

Mr. JONES. Are there any questions?

Mr. BALDWIN. I have a question on the State comments.

I noticed that the State recommended an alternate plan. The Chief of Engineers stated that the policy of the corps is to recommend for construction those elements or added increments where the added benefits exceed the added costs. It is the view of the Chief of Engineers that although construction of the floodwall adjacent to the river would protect an additional area not protected by the recommended plan, the additional cost for this alternative plan is greater than the additional benefits that would result, and therefore should not be recommended to the Congress.

Then the corps states, however, that the alternate plan could be constructed if local interests are willing to pay the difference in Federal cost between the recommended plan and the alternative plan.

Now, if we simply approve House Document No. 328, which is the corps report, does that, in your opinion, give you that option, because of the comments you have put in this report, or not?

Mr. MCRAE. We feel that it does, Mr. Baldwin, if local interests will pay the added cost.

Mr. BALDWIN. So we would not have to spell that out anymore than just approving House Document No. 328?

Mr. MCRAE. I think that would be sufficient, sir.

Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you.

Mr. JONES. Next project.

BAYOU BODCAU, ARK., AND LA.

Mr. MCRAE. Bayou Bodcau, Ark., and La., page 125 of the Senate report.

Bayou Bodcau drains 1,150 square miles in southwestern Arkansas and northwestern Louisiana. Since 1940, five floods have caused major damage in the basin.

The Chief of Engineers recommends levees and channel improvement in the basin at an estimated Federal cost of $1,524,000 subject to certain conditions of local cooperation. Local interests have indicated a willingness to comply. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.8.

The comments of the State of Lousina and the Federal agencies are generally favorable. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of the report to Congress.

Mr. JONES. Any questions?

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I have a question.

You state "generally favorable" on the part of the Department of Agricultre and on the part of the State of Louisiana.

Have they made any alternate recommendations?

Mr. MCRAE. They have not made alternate recommendations, Mr. Baldwin. But they have made some comments, which we can take care of in the planning stages of the project. We anticipate no problem.

Mr. JONES. Next project.

KASKASKIA RIVER LEVEES, ILLINOIS

Mr. MCRAE. Kaskaskia River levees, Illinois, page 171 of the Senate report.

The levees are located on the left and right banks of the Kaskaskia River between Cowden and Vandalia about 65 miles northeast of St. Louis, Mo. Policy in effect when these levees were authorized required local interests to make a cash contribution for land enhancement presently estimated to be $3,498,000. Under current policy no contribution would be required.

The Chief of Engineers recommends that the cash contribution no longer be required in connection with the construction of these levees. He further recommends that local interests reimburse an estimated $200,000 for the cost of easements when one of the levees is constructed. Local interests have indicated a willingness to comply. The benefitto-cost ratio is 1.4.

The State and Federal agencies favor the project. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of the report to Congress. Mr. JONES. I believe that is a more sensible approach to the proposition that we have had in the past.

Mr. MCRAE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JONES. Any questions?

Next project.

EAST ST. LOUIS, ILL.

Mr. MCRAE. East St. Louis, Ill., page 169 of the Senate report. The East St. Louis leveed area is located on the left bank of the Mississippi River across from St. Louis, Mo. High stages on the Mississippi River and a minor tributary cause interior flooding.