than having the committee prescribe the limiting qualification of the Bureau of the Budget?

Colonel YOUNG. Sir, the chief of engineers recommends the project at all Federal cost.

Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you.

Mr. GRAY. Without objection, the Chair will place a statement by our colleague, the Honorable Fernand St Germain, at this point immediately following Colonel Young's testimony concerning Providence River and Harbor, R.I., also statements from Congressman John E. Fogarty and American Merchant Marine Institute, Inc.

(The statements follow:)

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN FERNAND J. ST GERMAIN, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM RHODE ISLAND

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before this committee to urge approval of the Providence River and Harbor project. This is a much needed improvement which will contribute not only to the economy of Rhode Island but to the Nation.

The Chief of Engineers recommends in general a channel 40 feet deep and 600 feet wide, enlargement of the bends so as to provide a minimum radius of 5,000 feet, and a channel 30 feet deep and 150 feet wide along the India Street waterfront at the mouth of Seekonk River. The estimated cost of this project is $13,900,000 which is all Federal.

I have been informed that comments of the State and Federal agencies are favorable. In commenting on the report, the Bureau of the Budget stated that it had no objection to submission of the report to Congress. However, the Bureau recommended that if the India Point Channel is authorized by the Congress that local interests be required to pay 50 percent of the construction costs of the India Point Channel and that if such cost sharing is not provided, construction of this channel will 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. Chairman, I would like to point out that in 1960 vessel traffic on the Providence River and Harbor Waterway amounted to almost 8 million tons. I have been informed that many of the larger vessels which serve this area are subject to tidal delays or are restricted to partial loading, and that the present channel is inadequate for entry by the large tankers. I have given careful consideration to the proposed modification and consider that the channel improvements are essential and vital to the port of Providence.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the approval of this project as recommended by the Chief of Engineers.

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN E. FOGARTY, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM RHODE ISLAND

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today in support of the pending authorization for the Providence River and Harbor project in Rhode Island. As you know, this project was recommended by the Chief of Engineers of the Department of Army and is included in S. 2300 as passed by the Senate.

Construction of the proposed modification to the existing project to a depth of 40 feet is urgently needed to avoid the costly delays being experienced by ships awaiting favorable tides. In 1963, commerce in the harbor totaled over 9 million tons of which almost 90 percent was in petroleum and petroleum products carried in tankers with drafts up to 38 feet. Due to sharp bends in the channel and the lack of sufficient depths, navigation is extremely hazardous for these large tankers and it is imperative the situation be corrected as soon as possible.

The estimated cost of the project is $13,900,000 and it has an excellent benefitto-cost ratio of 2.1 to 1. The project report estimates annual transportation savings of $989,900 compared with annual costs of $477,200.

I would especially like to bring to your attention my concern over the Bureau of the Budget comments concerning the local cooperation requirements on the

32-529-65-pt. 1-12

construction of the new 30-foot tributary channel along the India Street waterfront. The Chief of Engineers recommended only the usual requirements of local cooperation on this portion of the project which involves only $200,000 of the total project cost of $13,900,000. However, because this India Point Channel may at first benefit only a single user, the Bureau of the Budget recommended that local interests be required to pay 50 percent of the construction costs. It further recommended if such cost sharing is not provided that 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 time. Although the Secretary of the Army concurred in the conditions of authorization as recommended by the Bureau of the Budget, he stated in his letter of August 12, 1964, to Senator Pat McNamara, chairman, Senate Committee on Public Works, the following:

"After the report of the Chief of Engineers was prepared, plans for urban redevelopment in vicinity of the India Point Channel was abandoned. Therefore, it is anticipated that land bordering this channel will be developed for commercial and industrial purposes by potential water users.'

The Senate committee after its review of the facts in the case did not adopt the recommendation of the Bureau of the Budget, stating in its report, "The committee considers the entire project to be a benefit to general navigation and worthy of construction at Federal expense. I sincerely hope that your committee will concur in the Senate action as I believe it would be unjust to require this special local cooperation on this small portion of the project. The Corps of Engineers found that the proposed 30-foot improvement to the India Point Channel would have a benefit-to-cost ratio of 2.1 to 1 and I am sure, as the Secretary of the Army states, that in the near future there will be considerable commercial and industrial development along this channel now that the plans for urban redevelopment in this area have been abandoned.

I, therefore, respectfully request that your committee recommended authorization of this project as passed by the Senate. I feel it is most desirable that we eliminate as soon as possible the costly delays now being incurred by navigation in the harbor.

Again, in closing, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of your committee for this opportunity to appear in behalf of this project which means so much to the Providence area.

STATEMENT OF AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE INSTITUTE, INC.

The report and recommendations of the Division Engineer, New England Division, as approved by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, and incorporated in Senate Document 93 (88th Cong.), would provide (1) that the Federal channel in Providence River be deepened from 35 to 40 feet, mean low water, for a width of generally 600 feet into Providence Harbor and (2) that a channel 30 feet deep and 150 feet wide be dredged along the India Street waterfront in Providence Harbor, at an estimated cost of $13,900,000. The benefit-cost ratio for this improvement has been computed at 2.1 to 1.

Most of the companies operating U.S.-flag tankers through Providence River to terminals in Providence Harbor are members of the institute. The institute has actively supported the improvement of this waterway. In a statement presented to the Division Engineer at a hearing held in April 1960 we took the position that the channel in Providence River and Harbor should be deepened to 40 feet and that bends in the channel should be widened to facilitate the navigation of large vessels. We wish to point out that the provision of a 40-foot channel will enable our member companies to operate large tankers to Providence at fully loaded draft ranging from 35 to 40 feet, the latter on high tide. Savings in transportation costs resulting from this improvement would be considerable, as shown in the report of the Division Engineer.

The institute recommends that the above improvement be authorized by Congress.

Mr. GRAY. I might point out this bill has been introduced by our highly esteemed and able chairman of this committee, Congressman Fallon, who is here as always this morning, and after your statement,

Colonel, we will be glad to yield to our distinguished chairman if he has any remarks to make in connection with this project.

Mr. FALLON. Thank you.

Mr. GRAY. You may proceed, Colonel.

CHESAPEAKE BAY BASIN

Colonel YOUNG. H.R. 8740 would authorize the Secretary of the Army to conduct a complete investigation and study of water utilization and control of the Chesapeake Bay Basin.

This bill contains three main provisions. First, it provides that the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized and directed to make a complete investigation and study of water utilization and control of the Chesapeake Bay Basin, including the waters of the Baltimore Harbor and including, but not limited to, the following: navigation, fisheries, flood control, control of obnoxious weeds, water pollution, water quality control, beach erosion, and recreation.

Second, the bill would provide that, in order to carry out the purposes of the act, the Secretary, acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall construct, operate, and maintain in the State of Maryland a hydraulic model of the Chesapeake Bay Basin together with an associated technical center.

And finally, that the model and center may be utilized, subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary deems necessary, by any department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal Government or of the States of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, in connection with any research, investigation, or study being carried on by them of any aspect of the Chesapeake Bay Basin, provided that the study authorized by this act shall be given priority.

Chesapeake Bay is the largest tidal inlet on the Atlantic Ocean with a surface area of about 4,300 square miles, and a tidal shoreline about 4,600 miles long. The bay has long been recognized as one of the most important seafood areas in the world, producing about $38 million worth of commercial seafood products each year, and providing a livelihood for about 20,000 persons. Waterborne commerce, totaling about 150 million tons annually, moves over the waterway, and contributes in a large measure to the economy of the tributary States.

Major ports in the Chesapeake Bay area include Baltimore, situated near the head of Chesapeake Bay, and the ports in the Hampton Roads area located at the south end of the bay, about 172 miles. south of Baltimore.

The population of the tidewater area in 1960 was about 5,500,000 people.

There is no basin plan for the development of the water resoucres within the Chesapeake Bay area. The water resources studies made to date on tributary streams and individual projects in the bay have generally not considered the overall needs or requirements of the area. The growing population and development surrounding the bay points to the need for development of a fully integrated basin plan for optimum development of the area. Due to the rapid increase in the use of all water resources and related lands in the bay area and the

ever-increasing pollution problems of the bay, it is considered that a basin study is warranted at this time.

All phases of the proposed investigation would involve cooperation with other Federal agencies as well as the planning and water resource agencies of the States of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia. The total Federal cost of the study is estimated at $8,500,000 of which $5,750,000 would be for the model and prototype surveys, $750,000 for the technical center, and $2 million for the water and related resources studies. The estimated time schedule for design, construction, and testing of the model is 7 years.

The Corps of Engineers is keenly aware of the growing population and development surrounding the bay and recognizes the need for development of a fully integrated basin plan for optimum development of the water and related land resources of the bay.

A model study would be a useful tool for gaining insight into the hydraulic and hydrographic mechanisms operating in the bay. The need for technical studies of the bay are believed to justify the establishment of a technical center at the model location.

Accordingly, the Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Army favor the enactment of the proposed legislation.

The Bureau of the Budget has not commented on H.R. 7840 as of the present time.

Mr. GRAY. Thank you, Colonel.

It is refreshing to see the comments of the Bureau of the Budget only contain "no objections" instead of some long proviso.

Čolonel YOUNG. Sir? In this particular instance, we have not received the comments of the Bureau of the Budget.

Mr. GRAY. Oh, I am sorry. I was looking at the wrong one. I thought that was too good to be true. [Laughter.]

For years, the distinguished chairman of our committee has been kind in yielding to us for comments and questions. I am glad to be able to return the favor this morning by yielding to our distinguished chairman, Mr. Fallon, of Maryland.

Mr. FALLON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It certainly is a pleasure for me, as a member of the subcommittee, to come as a witness. It has been one of the rare experiences I have had here before this committee.

I would like to say that I have a statement to make, but we have some gentlemen here who have sponsored a similar bill with several variances in it, and I certainly would like to hear from them first. Mr. GRAY. You may proceed in your own fashion, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FALLON. Thank you.

Mr. Hervey G. Machen, a Representative from Maryland, has introduced a bill similar to the one I have introduced, and certainly I would like to yield to Mr. Machen so that he can make his statement first this morning.

Mr. Machen.

STATEMENT OF HON. HERVEY G. MACHEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. MACHEN. I first would like to thank the dean of our delegation and the chairman of the Public Works Committee for an opportunity to appear here. It is a new experience for me, appearing before the subcommittee of the committee of which he is chairman.

Many of us in Maryland for many years have been very cognizant of the problems of the Chesapeake Bay. As a member of the Maryland Legislature for 10 years, I worked with the Chesapeake Bay Tributaries Committee time after time when questions would come up of the depletion of the oyster supply, questions of the depletion of the fish, and the questions of pollution.

The scientists and our experts would come up with, "We are studying it, but we do not know all of the answers," and mention a few other things that many of you know about who have had the opportunity to visit the bay area: the sea nettles that have been with us from time immemorial, and we do not know where they come from; milfoil, and lastly this sea lettuce that has come about here in the last few years.

And quite candidly, our scientists and our experts say they have no idea whatsoever as to how it can be controlled.

In appearing before you today, I will read my statement, and in talking about this sea lettuce, I will give you an illustration of what

occurs.

I would like to describe an incident which took place recently in the Owings Beach vicinity of Anne Arundel County along the shore of the Chesapeake Bay. A group of volunteers from the Deale Volunteer Fire Department got together one night and using 21⁄2-inch hoses, sprayed piles of stinking sea lettuce for more than an hour.

Now, to visualize it-I mean, many of you all have seen the aquariums with the green leaf, broad leaf, which reminds you of a spinach leaf or something. It does not have many roots of any kind. But in the areas, particularly where there has been soil or beach conservation projects, particularly in jetties and seawall, this stuff will accumulate anywhere from an inch to 4 or 5 inches thick with the rising and falling of the tide, when the tide goes out. And if it is exposed to the sands of the beach, you need a gas mask in order to be able to get into it.

Anyway, this one instance I mentioned the volunteers sprayed and sprayed the sea lettuce along the beaches and bulkheads hoping to wash it away or sink it somehow.

The next morning the sun came up. Owings Beach residents looked outside. The smell was still there and so was the sea lettuce and another ttempt to get rid of it had failed.

Mr. Chairman, this is but one illustration of only one of the many perplexing problems that occur daily and in apparently increasing frequency along the shores of the Chesapeake Bay and her tributaries.

Here is another example: The Interior Department estimated last June that the cancerous growth of Eurasian water milfoil in the bay and the Potomac River has caused a potential loss of more than $1 million a year in our oyster harvest.

Now, this water milfoil is a long, stringy plant. It can grow in 2 feet of water or it can grow in 7 or 8 feet of water. It will still reach out of the water.

It can be controlled by a type of pesticide, but the type of pesticide is also questionable in its use because of its effect on the shellfish and shell life. It can only be used at certain periods of the year to become effective. But because the scientists do not know its ultimate effect, local health departments have been very, very reluctant to approve any extensive use of these pesticides to control it.