feet in the creek proper; and a branch channel 12 feet deep, 80 to 100 feet wide, about six-tenths of a mile long in Herberts Creek. Construction of the Hampton Creek channel was completed in 1939 and the Herberts Creek channel in 1949. One of the terms of local cooperation for the existing project required that local interests provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including spoil disposal areas. Accelerated development of shore areas, both private and public' including several Federal Government installations, since adoption of the existing project has made it impossible for local interests to furnish reasonable shore disposal areas for dredge spoil. As a result, during periodic maintenance of the channels in 1960, local interests were required to contribute 43 percent of the cost in lieu of providing spoil disposal areas. The Chief of Engineers recommends that the existing project for Hampton Creek be modified to delete the requirement that local interests furnish, free of cost to the United States, suitable areas for disposal of dredged material. Federal construction of the Craney Island disposal area was completed in 1958 on lands furnished by local interests. This area is part of the existing project for Norfolk Harbor, but is also currently being used for dredge spoil from other projects in the Hampton Roads area. The total annual benefits are estimated at $140,000 and the total annual charges are estimated at $31,600 resulting in a benefit-to-cost ratio of 4.4 to 1. There are no Federal first costs. The estimated Federal cost is for maintenance only over the remaining 30-year life of the project. Comments of the State and Federal agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of the report. However, the Bureau of the Budget considers it possible to establish an arrangement more nearly in keeping with the intent of the original authorization. Accordingly, the Bureau of the Budget recommends that local interests participate in the cost of spoil disposal in the Craney Island disposal area. Thus, according to the Bureau of the Budget, the cost to local interests would be $27,260 for the initial rehabilitation to be accomplished as deferred maintenance and $810 per year for annual maintenance over the remaining life of the project. Mr. GRAY. Thank you very much, Colonel. Mr. GRAY. Now we will be delighted to hear from our colleague, Congressman Downing. You may proceed in your own fashion by introducing your city councilman, Mr. Martin. STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS N. DOWNING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, ACCOMPANIED BY HENRY MARTIN, CITY COUNCILMAN, CITY OF HAMPTON, VA., AND CHAIRMAN, HAMPTON CREEK IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE Mr. DOWNING. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and gentle men. I have with me Henry C. Martin, who is a member of the city council of Hampton, Va., and who is chairman of the community's Hampton Creek Improvement Committee. He is an expert on conditions in the creek channel and would be helpful to you, I think, if you have any specific questions as to the local use of this channel. Mr. Chairman, about 350 years ago, we had three little ships that came in there under Capt. John Smith and they came in this channel. However, if they came today, they would have a little difficulty. This is Hampton Creek Channel and there is an urgent necessity for dredging of the channel to a 12-foot depth. The city of Hampton, Va., which is one of the most active fisheries and shellfisheries commercial centers on the central Atlantic coast, is absolutely dependent on the navigability of Hampton Creek. Without exaggeration, Mr. Chairman, the channel in Hampton Creek is the main commercial artery for the city of Hampton. The channel is in constant use by commercial watermen and it is frequently used by the Federal Government for the transportation of materials needed by the Federal activities located near the city of Hampton. In fact, all of the fuel oil for Langley Air Force Base and for Fort Monroe is barged through this channel. All the runway construction material for Langley Air Force and Tactical Air Command Headquarters is barged by way of this channel. Now, as the colonel so adequately pointed out in his statement-and, incidentally, that was an excellent résumé of the project-this is an existing channel project. The existing project provides for a 12-foot channel across Hampton Flats and up Hampton Creek some 2 miles to the Queen Street Bridge. In the outer portion of the creek a 200-foot width is authorized and a 150-foot width is authorized in the creek. In Herberts Creek, which is the principal tributary for Hampton Creek, a 12-foot depth channel some 80 to 100 feet wide has been approved. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers originally completed the Hampton Creek channel in 1939 and the Herberts Creek portion was completed in 1949. Maintenance dredging has occurred from time to time since the late 1940's, of course; but I understand that maintenance work was last accomplished about 5 years ago. Shoaling in the channel has been severe since 1960. The channel depth in some places has been reduced to 8 feet. The larger fishing vessels-vessels like the one used for scallops or sailfish for example draw up to 111⁄2 feet. Incidentally, this scallop industry has been booming. They have just found the largest scallop bed perhaps in the world right off the Virginia Cape. There are some 60 boats on the Virginia coast using this scallop bed, and only 4 of which can use the channel which supplies Hampton. Commerce statistics that I have seen indicate that waterborne commerce tonnages have been decreasing over the past few years. Vessel trips up the channel have also been on the decline. It is clear to me, Mr. Chairman, that the city of Hampton will not much longer survive as an important factor in east coast fisheries unless we will be able to restore the channel in Hampton Creek to the full authorized project depth or 12 feet. I have asked this to be accomplished just as soon as practicable and I want you gentlemen to know that I am very grateful to you for giving me this chance to tell you how important this project is to my Constituency. I understand that the U.S. Corps of Engineers at all levels favor restoration of the project depth to 12 feet. I understand, too, Mr. Chairman, that the Budget Bureau favors restoration of the authorized channel depth as well. I believe the cost-benefit ratio of the project is about 4.4 with an estimated cost to the United States of $400,000 for initial dredging and $11,000 annually for maintenance. I consider the cost-benefit ratio and the project cost to be economically justified, Mr. Chairmanparticularly when viewed in the light of the survival economically of an important coastal community. I also might tell you gentlemen that the city of Hampton is confronted with something of a unique problem on this particular project. Of the $377,000 already expended on Hampton Creek's channel, the city of Hampton contributed $117,000. Over the years the city of Hampton has cooperated fully to meet the Corps of Engineers requirements for local cooperation which in this area involves primarily the provision of local spoil disposal areas. Hampton, however, is no longer able to furnish disposal areas. The land near the project is simply no longer available. A large refinery has been built there along with a number of military and other Federal installations. Hampton officials have, therefore, been forced to ask that the project requirement for locally provided spoil disposal areas be eliminated. If there is no available land and if the depth water deposit area is not within reasonable pumping distances, the city clearly has no choice but to seek relief. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, at all levels, has recommended that local interests be relieved of the responsibility of providing spoil disposal areas. We are, of course, very pleased that the Engineers have agreed with our view of the problem. The Budget Bureau, however, did not see fit to agree with us or with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the people there recommended that local interests contribute $27,260 for initial dredging and $810 annually for maintenance. The Bureau arrived at these figures by computing at 9 cents per cubic yard the capital investment increment of the cost of spoil disposal in the Craney Island disposal area. The Army Engineers are entirely willing, Mr. Chairman, to dispose of the spoil from Hampton Creek in the Craney Island disposal area without charging the people of the city of Hampton. I might add here that similar dredging projects in the Hampton Roads-Norfolk-Lower Peninsula area are already utilizing Craney Island's facilities without cost to local interests. I do not want to belabor this point, gentlemen. You have the full file containing both the Army Engineers' recommendations and the Budget Bureau's recommendations. I know you will review both positions carefully and make your best judgment on the issue. The real issue, Mr. Chairman, is the spoil disposal area. I think we all agree that the channel itself has got to be dredged to the required depth of 12 feet and it is certainly economically justified. But to require the city of Hampton to pay this $27,000 is a hardship. If the city could provide a spoils disposal area, it would; but there is none available. And everybody familiar with the project, with the exception of the Bureau of the Budget, has recommended that the city be relieved of this expense and the city of Hampton is in no financial position to bear this expense, even though it is relatively small. So I ask, Mr. Chairman, that you and the members of the committee give particular consideration to this request to be relieved of the $27,000, which the Bureau of the Budget has sought to impose upon the city of Hampton. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the gentlemen of the committee, for your kind attention and if you have any questions, I will be delighted to try to answer them, or Mr. Martin will also accommodate you. Mr. GRAY. We thank our colleague for being very forthright and informative in his testimony. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. GRAY. We were having a colloquy with the staff concerning this proviso. I am sure the proviso you take exception to is this: The Bureau recommends that local interests participate in the cost of spoil disposal by contributing in cash the capital investment increment of the cost of spoil disposal in the Craney Island disposal area. That is the proviso you have taken exception to? Mr. DOWNING. That is correct. Mr. GRAY. Our colloquy concerns the last statement here in the information given on the project. It said: The Secretary of the Army agrees with the views of the Bureau of the Budget. Of course, when we authorize a project, it usually says, "substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers." So I wonder, Colonel, if you would mind clearing this matter up while we are on the specific project of Hampton Creek, as to what the views of the corps are? Colonel YOUNG. The Corps of Engineers, the Chief of Engineers, recommends, sir, that the project should be modified and that spoil should be disposed in the Craney Island disposal area with no cost to the local interests. Mr. GRAY. I am sure your data reads the same as mine. Mr. GRAY. Except the Army agrees with the view of the Bureau of the Budget, which are the statements that I have just quoted, the recommendation local interests participate in the cost of spoils disposal. So I am asking you for the record to clear this matter up, you do agree with the local people of Hampton that the cost of this should be borne by the corps, not the local interests? Colonel YOUNG. Yes, sir, this was the proposal in our report. Mr. GRAY. I can assure the gentleman this committee will give every consideration to this request, notwithstanding the recommendation by the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. DOWNING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the opportunity to be here. Mr. GRAY. Any questions? Mr. DORN. I wonder if I may thank my colleague, our distinguished constituent, for coming before the committee. You are most welcome bere. Mr. DOWNING. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GRAY. Any questions on my right? Questions? Thank you again, Mr. Downing, for your very fine testimony and for bringing Mr. Martin with you. Mr. DOWNING. Thank you, sir. Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, sir. Mr. GRAY. Colonel, we will proceed to the Providence River and Harbor, R.I. PROVIDENCE RIVER AND HARBOR, R.I. Colonel YOUNG. Sir, this project is found on page 59 of the Senate committee report. Providence River is a tidal estuary extending northerly from the upper limits of Narragansett Bay about 8 miles inland to the city of Providence. The upper 21⁄2 miles comprise the main harbor, generally that portion extending north from Field Point to Fox Point and India Point. The existing project provides for an entrance channel, 600 feet wide and 35 feet deep; a main harbor channel, approximately 1,700 feet wide, also with a 35-foot depth; and a barge channel, 16 feet deep, up the Seekonk River. The major difficulties to navigation are the sharp bends in the main entrance channel and the lack of sufficient depths to accommodate the vessels now using the navigation facilities. The 35-foot depth limits the maximum-size tanker which may safely navigate the channel and subjects the larger vessels now using the channel to varying degrees of tidal delay. In addition, exports of scrap metals in Liberty ships from a terminal near India Point are hindered by inadequate depths in the approach channel from Fox Point to India Point. The Chief of Engineers recommends modification of the existing Federal project to provide a channel 40 feet deep and generally 600 feet wide, to enlarge the bends so as to provide a minimum radius of 5,000 feet, and to provide a channel 30 feet deep and 150 feet wide along the Indian Street waterfront. The total estimated first cost, all Federal, is $13,900,000. The annual charges are estimated at $477,200, and the annual benefits $989,900 resulting in a benefit-to-cost ratio of 2.1 to 1. Comments of State and other Federal agencies are favorable. However, the Bureau of the Budget points out that it considers that the projected benefits of the proposed Federal investment for the channel from Fox Point to India Point would accrue to a single beneficiary. Accordingly, the Bureau recommends that if this channel is authorized by the Congress, conditions of authorization require that, prior to expenditure of Federal construction funds, local interests agree to pay 50 percent of construction costs for this particular channel, total cost estimated at approximately $200,000, or if such cost sharing is not provided, construction of the channel not commence until such time as there are additional users or the Secretary of the Army determines that there will be additional users within a reasonable period of time. Mr. GRAY. Any questions? Mr. BALDWIN. I have a question. Mr. GRAY. Mr. Baldwin. Mr. BALDWIN. As I understand it, Colonel, therefore you are recommending that the project be constructed at Federal expense rather |