(The statement of Hon. Clarence D. Long, Member of Congress from Maryland, follows:) STATEMENT BY HON. CLARENCE D. LONG, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM MARYLAND Mr. Chairman, I urge this distinguished committee to support my bill, H.R. 5696, amending the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1958, to give the Army Engineers authority to eradicate water milfoil. Individuals, organizations, Maryland State officials, and, indeed, officials of other States have indicated to me the great and pressing need for this legislation. Over the period of 2 years, a continuing flow of requests for Federal assistance has come to me. Mrs. Julia Connor, who owns a home near Deale, Md., wrote: "The officers of Ark Haven Club, the subdivision where my cottage is located, have repeatedly contacted Maryland officials asking relief on this problem. The answer has always been 'there is nothing we can do about it." In answer to my inquiry about remedial measures that might be of help to members of the Oliver Beach Association, homeowners on the Gunpowder River, the Maryland Department of Forests and Parks replied: "Vast expanes of milfoil are prevalent throughout the Gunpowder estuary, and, although with some difficulty and expense it is possible to control on a local basis annually, costs for control on the complete estuary at the present time are prohibitive." Part of this Gunpowder River estuary is within the boundaries of Aberdeen Proving Ground. The commanding officer of the proving ground reports that: "Personnel of this command have assisted in joint Federal and State sponsored studies and meetings on the growth of water milfoil in the Chesapeake Bay and tributaries. From these studies a general recognition has developed that any countering action or solution must encompass the entire watershed to be effective." The Maryland Department of Chesapeake Bay Affairs has done a thoroug study of the matter. The report on the Manatee project, issued in spring 1955, describes water milfoil as: * a nuisance when it forms extensive beds that interfere with boating, swimming, and fishing. It has also been found that milfoil meadows are the very best breeding ground for mosquitos. Another important feature is that dense beds of milfoil create muddy bottoms by serving as settling basins for silt particles. Extensive beds can damage oysters and clams by slowing down water circulation and cutting off supplies to these animals. Large fish find it difficult to swim in thick weeds, although fry and larvae find adequate protection and an abundance of food." The Department of the Interior's Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has estimated a potential loss of $1 million a year to Maryland's oyster harvest. In the Chesapeake Bay and Potomac River, it has increased from 20,000 acres of infestation in 1961 to more than 200,000 acres in 1964, an increase of 900 percent. Other States face a similar problem. The Tennessee Department of Conservation recently wrote: This water milfoil was first noticed in Tennessee in the Watts Bar Reservoir about 1960. It has spread very rapidly and is now in some of the other reservoirs. We are greatly concerned with this problem which may soon be compastely out of control unless something is done at once." The control and eradication of this weed present complex problems that need to be attacked by a single agency, acting effectively, and with sufficient funds. A representative of the Interior Department's Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife notes that "Existing control procedures are most effective for only a Zweek period from mid-May through early June." A study made by the department of Chesapeake Bay affairs reports that water milfoil spreads by fragmentation and is capable of regrowth from the roots when wed. The most successful method, thus far, has been the use of 24-D at the rate of 20 pounds acid equivalent per acre. Use of this chemical pesticide near elm or oyster beds is forbidden by U.S. Food and Drug regulations. And its use is not fully effective even where used. The Stevens Road Improvement Associaton reported its use of 24-D 20 percent and concluded unhappily: "This checks the growth for a time, but the following season it returns stronger than ever." The consensus of informed opinion is that counteraction to this aquatic pest must encompass the entire watershed to be effective. I introduced H.R. 5696 to enable concerted action to be taken against water milfoil; first, certainly in the four States most affected; namely, Maryland, Virginia, New Jersey, and Tennessee. By this, I do not wish to preclude assistance to any other State that needs it. I welcome any amendments to include other areas. The time for action against this pest is now. The department of Chesapeake Bay affairs ranks water milfoil as the second most destructive weed in the tidewaters of the State, the bay, and the Potomac River. The cost of eradication because of the plant's easy propagation and regeneration is prohibitive at present. Both a program of annual eradication and research into methods of complete eradication must be conducted. The authorization clause has been left open as to money, because I believe that the costs of this job must be met as they arise. I respectfully offer my bill, H.R. 5696, to the consideration of this committee for inclusion as an amendment to the rivers and harbors bill which it is now considering. Mr. GRAY. Now we move on to the very pleasant task of introducing one of the outstanding officers of the Army Corps, and also one of our esteemed colleagues from Texas, Congressman Thompson, and we move on to the project with such a good name-Chocolate Bayou, of Texas. We will first hear from Col. R. S. Kristoferson, of the Army Corps. Would you please explain the Chocolate Bayou project? STATEMENT OF LT. COL. R. S. KRISTOFERSON, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS-Resumed CHOCOLATE BAYOU, TEX. Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This report is found on pages 27 and 28 of the Senate report. It pertains to Chocolate Bayou, Tex. It deals with navigation improvements. It is submitted in response to resolutions of the Committees on Public Works of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives, both adopted June 30, 1960. It Chocolate Bayou is a small stream, about 40 miles in length. lies between the Brazos River and Galveston Bay in southeastern Texas. There is an authorized channel with dimensions of 4 feet deep and 100 feet wide extending from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway through Chocolate Bay to the 4-foot depth in Chocolate Bayou. The Monsanto Chemical Co. undertook in 1962 to dredge an 8.2-mile channel 10 feet deep and 100 feet wide from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway through Chocolate Bay and Chocolate Bayou to their new chemical plant. Local interests desire enlargement of the existing channel to accommodate the same barge service now available on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway; Federal assumption of maintenance of existing and proposed channels; reimbursement of Monsanto Chemical Co. for the expense of dredging the 10-foot channel; and a salt water barrier to prevent intrusion of salt water into irrigation water pumping plant intakes. The Chief of Engineers recommends modification of the existing Federal navigation project to provide a channel 12 feet deep and 123 feet wide extending from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway throug Chocolate Bay and Chocolate Bayou to project channel miles thence, a channel 9 feet deep and 100 feet wide to a turning basi 9 feet deep and 600 feet square near project channel mile 13.2; and a salt water barrier in Chocolate Bayou about 3.7 miles upstream of the turning basin. The estimated total first cost of construction is $1,605,000, of which $351,000 is non-Federal cost. Total annual charges are $77,000 as compared with annual benefits of $259,000, resulting in a benefit-tocost ratio of 3.4. Local interests are required to: Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way required for construction and subsequent maintenance of the improvements and for aids to navigation upon request of the Chief of Engineers, including suitable areas for initial and subsequent disposal of spoil; and also necessary retaining dikes, bulkheads, and embankments therefor, or the costs of such retaining works. Hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction and maintenance of the improvements. Provide and maintain at local expense adequate public terminal and transfer facilities open to all on equal terms. Accomplish without cost to the United States all alterations of pipelines, powerlines, utility lines, cables, and highway facilities. And finally, assume all obligations of ownership, operation, and maintenance of the salt water barrier and appurtenances upon its completion. Comments of the State of Texas and the Federal agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget notes that the project in the lower reach would initially serve only the Monsanto Chemical Co. and in the upper reach would, at least initially, benefit only the Matagorda Shell Co.; and further that it is not clear just how soon additional shippers would benefit from the modified channel. The Bureau believes that in addition to the conditions of local cooperation recommended by the Chief of Engineers, and in accord with the established policy concerning single users, some provision for special cost sharing should be required. A resonable basis would be payment by local interests, annually, until such time as multiple use of the channel actually occurs, of 50 percent of the annual charges for interest and amortization of the Federal first cost of the facilities involved. Subject to the consideration of the recommendation, the Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of the request to Congress. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Mr. GRAY. Thank you, Colonel. It is always a pleasure and privilege for this committee to welcome our distinguished friend from Texas, Congressman Thompson. STATEMENT OF HON. CLARK W. THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of time, may I ask permission to file my statement? Mr. GRAY. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF CLARK W. THOMPSON Mr. Chairman, you have before you a detailed description of the Chocolate Bayou project. In the interest of the committee's time, I will limit my remarks to two points which I believe merit your consideration. The first is the question of reimbursing local interests for work done on the present channel; namely, the Monsanto Chemical Co., which in 1962 constructed a plant on the bayou. Monsanto expended $564,200 to dredge a channel 10 feet deep and 100 feet wide from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to a basin at their plant. It was imperative to the company to do this prior to Federal participation in the project. In the first year of operation, 1962, Monsanto shipped 339,600 tons via the channel. The following year it jumped to 14 million tons, and last year 1,791,000 tons. For 1965 a reasonable projection would be about 2 million tons. I believe this points out how vital it was for the company to do this dredging. The channel had been an existing project of the Corps of Engineers back to 1907. The work accomplished by Monsanto was done under a permit issued by the Engineers who were kept fully informed about the planning and dredging. The channel serves the needs of general navigation and has encouraged further industrial development and in general improved the economy of the area. The record will show that at no time has there been any thought or consideration on Monsanto's part to preempt the prerogatives of the Department of the Army or the Congress in their planning and control of Federal projects. It was the time factor alone which prompted the accomplishment of the work under permit from the Corps of Engineers. It should be noted that the report before you contains no recommendations to change the work already done by Monsanto but simply expands what has been accomplished. I urge the committee to give most careful consideration to this request for reimbursement. I am aware of the policy in this area, but strongly feel that there is particular merit in this case. The other point I would like to stress to the committee concerns the comments of the Bureau of the Budget on this project. The BOB has indicated that the project might be classified as a single user. I take strong exception with this. This project has long been a dream of navigation leaders in that area and long before any of us had ever heard of Monsanto. In addition to serving the Monsanto plant, the channel is vital to the Matagorda Shell Co., which last year shipped about 100,000 tons up the bayou. It also promises to be an important mode of transportation for a large refinery operated by the Phillips Petroleum Co. a few miles away. In addition, the Texas Co. is presently constructing a dock on the channel indicating its intended use of it. Most important is the potential industrial growth of the area in the near future. It is in the heart of the gulf coast which is experiencing fantastic industrial expansion and is only minutes from Metropolitan Houston. There are multiple users now and there is no question about this factor multiplying many times over in a relatively short time. I am confident that the wish of the Senate Public Works Committee that the Chief of Engineers restudy the matter of cost sharing and potential additional users of this channel will reflect what I have said here. Mr. THOMPSON. At this time I would like to summarize the high spots. Mr. GRAY. Would you please proceed in your own fashion. Mr. THOMPSON. May I invite the attention of the committee to the presence in the room of Mr. M. S. Young, of Monsanto Chemical Co., who is prepared to answer such questions as may develop. Now, Mr. Chairman, we agree with the action of the other body, which approved our project as we have recommended it, and leaves open a question of reimbursement. Now, as to the multiple use and the distribution of the cost, and so forth, I invite to your attention the fact that this project dates way back to 1907, long before the Monsanto Chemical Co. was ever known in our part of the country. The reason why the Monsanto people wanted to go ahead was the extremely urgent need for the kind of product that they manufacture in their plant. If this channel had not been completed it, it would still not have been started even. when they did complete They did it in 1962 and it would not even be any more than on the preliminary drafting boards at this time, which certainly shows that their judgment was correct when they went ahead and did it themselves. Now as to the background for reimbursement, I realize that it is pretty generally apart from precedence to do it, but it is not wholly apart. There is another project down in Corpus Christi, in our own State of Texas, in which there was reimbursement. I invite these things to your attention merely to leave the subject open with you and to ask you at the proper time to let us present all of the facts and figures concerning the Monsanto Chemical Co. and what they have done. May I also invite to your attention the history of channels like this one along the Texas coast, feeders to the intercoastal canal. I know of none that has required any particular participation by the first plant on the lower reaches of the channel. But rather, your committee has shared our dream that once the waterway is completed, there will be plenty of use of it. That has proven true in every single one of the channels that we have constructed and we have constructed quite a few of them. So we leave it with you, glad that the engineers have recommended it so close to our recommendations and leaving open only the question of reimbursement on the part of Monsanto Chemical Co. Mr. GRAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Thompson. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GRAY. I might ask a couple of questions of the colonel. Mr. GRAY. I notice it has a very high benefit-cost ratio, more than 3 to 1. If you eliminated the use of the waterway by the Monsanto Chemical Co., how many other users would you estimate could be figured into the benefit-cost ratio? In other words, if these single users were eliminated, would this not still be a favorable project with such a high benefit-cost ratio, or are you figuring mostly these two companies, Monsanto and Matagorda Shell Co., in figuring the benefit-to-cost ratio? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. We have figured the benefit-to-cost ratio on the basis of the projecting traffic into the future without determining which firm is going to move the material in the future. Mr. GRAY. If you have industrial parks or potential use of it in the future, why should 50 percent of the cost of the waterway, ordinarily borne by all the people, be saddled on one company? Fifty percent of the cost of this is recommended by the Bureau of the Budget to be charged to the Monsanto Chemical Co. If we build a waterway anywhere in the public's responsibility to promote commerce. of the cost be saddled on any one company? used by anyone in this 13-mile stretch. country, it is the general Why would 50 percent The waterway could be Colonel KRISTOFERSON. We would agree with the statement just made. We support the policy if there is, in fact, a single user of the waterway. The single user should contribute dependent on the special benefits that he gets. In this case there is actually more than one user. It is the corps belief that the benefits are widespread and national in significance and should be assumed by the Federal Government. |