In this proposed project, we have two users today. We have the Monsanto Chemical Co. and we have the Matagordo Shell Co. I am aware of an application at this moment in the Chief of Engineers' office by the Texas Co. (Texaco), to build a spur channel and a turning basin for the shipment of petroleum products. It is evident to us that this channel is developing. We are aware of three users now. By the time it is built, there may be additional users. Mr. CLAUSEN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. GRAY. Yes. Mr. CLAUSEN. I am wondering if the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Thompson, would agree with the points that have just been made? Would you agree with the points that have just been made, sir? Mr. THOMPSON. I would agree and I would go a little further. Close to the turning basin, I cannot see from where I am sitting whether it shows on the map, but there is a plant operated by the Phillips Petroleum Co. Does it show? Mr. GRAY. Four? Mr. THOMPSON. At any event, there is a very considerable operation there. I have no request from Phillips. I have no authority to speak for them; but I point out to you that on every other channel where they have a refinery and any considerable amount of petroleum products forthcoming, the intercoastal canal and its feeder channels have carried a tremendous amount of that product. We have every reason to think, particularly in the light of the Texaco application, which I knew of only in the last few days, we have every reason to think that this channel will carry its full share of petroleum. May I also invite to your attention, Mr. Chairman, that this channel is in the tremendous industrial complex of the great city of Houston. I suppose it is perhaps within 30 miles of the heart of that city, and much closer to the industrial part of it as the city fans out into the adjoining territory. The future I think is bright as for any part of the United States. I do not believe there is the slightest question that the Corps of Engineers is correct, that this is a multiple-purpose channel and it should be treated as such. Mr. CLAUSEN. Will the chairman yield further? Mr. GRAY. Yes, Mr. Clausen. Mr. CLAUSEN. Because I know Mr. Thompson is one of the Members of Congress not known for his extravagance and the fact he supported this lends itself to the overall support of the project. I think the chairman has made an excellent point, because as we consider the entire transportation systems of this country, it seems as though we have had adequate financing available to the highway transportation. Of course we have the rail transportation, which is a public utility; but it seems to me that for water transportation in and of itself, we should develop some sort of a financing program that is at least comparable to the others. There is no reason why we should discriminate against this just because people want to come in and locate next to a channel which is being developed. I do concur. I would be pleased to have your comments, sir. Mr. GRAY. Mr. Roberts. Mr. ROBERTS. I wish to compliment, Mr. Chairman, my distinguished colleague from Texas. There is not a Member of the House who has done more to develop inland waterway navigation than Clark Thompson. This area, as he said, not only has tremendous oil and chemical facilities, but also the petrochemical industry is lining up every channel that we have. And I am delighted that the corps is willing to go along with his recommendation and I certainly compliment the gentleman. Mr. GRAY. Mr. Dorn. Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment Congressman Thompson, also, and I would like to ask-this seems like the type of project that all of us are for; that is, it puts people in business, it gives people employment; I would like to know, Mr. Thompson, what is the size of the Monsanto chemical plant? How many people does it employ? What about the taxes it pays? Here is the kind of thing that I think this committee is really interested in, local, Federal, and State taxes paid by a plant of this kind. Mr. THOMPSON. May I ask Mr. Young a question off the record? (Discussion off the record.) Mr. THOMPSON. I would like to ask permission to give you the answer to those questions for the record accurately. Mr. GRAY. Without objection, the record will be kept open for that purpose. (The information follows:) MONSANTO CO. CHOCOLATE BAYOU PLANT, ALVIN, TEX. Mr. DORN. I would also appreciate the Shell plant in Buffalo. Mr. DORN. I would like to point out when we spent money for industries coming in, I think those taxes, local, State and Federal taxes, are important. Mr. Chairman, this is where you get your local schools and your hospitals, and those things that really promote the Great Society. Mr. GRAY. I agree with the gentleman. Taking this Monsanto Chemical Co. as the case in point, how could this committee possibly authorize a project saying that one user is going to have to pay 50 per cent when by the time it is built it is going to have many companies along the canal? We would like to have a large number of users. It would be impossible to work out a pro rata cost to Monsanto, with others using a public waterway. It is a dangerous precedent. I assure the gentleman from Texas, as one member of the committee, we will consider authorizing this and other projects by our committee policy. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask what is involved in reimbursement to Monsanto? Mr. GRAY. As projects go, this is a small project; $1,254,000 is the total Federal cost, non-Federal, $351,000, making a total of $1,605,000. As you know, that is a very small project, as navigation goes. It seems to have a lot of benefits. I might again point out the cost-benefit ratio is better than 3 to 1. Mr. MCCARTHY. How much would be paid to the company? Mr. GRAY. Nothing would be paid to the company. This is a matter of making improvement on the waterway and they are being penalized, the way I see it, because they happened to have located along the waterway. Mr. MCCARTHY. As I understood it, they would be reimbursed for the work they have already done; is that not correct? Mr. THOMPSON. That is correct. They have spent $564,200 to dredge the channel, starting in 1962. Mr. MCCARTHY. So that the Government will pay half that, is that correct? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. No, that is not correct, sir. Monsanto Chemical has made a request to be reimbursed for work they have already done. And they report their expenses to be $564,200. That is a separate question from the cost-sharing provision which we were discussing earlier. Mr. MCCARTHY. So the Government would, if they responded to their request, the Federal Government would pay them $500,000odd? Mr. THOMPSON. That is correct, they would reimburse them for the work they have done. Mr. GRAY. The work performed is consistent and contiguous with the overall project. Colonel KRISTOFERSON. This is true. Mr. GRAY. This is the point I am making, the work they have done is part of the improvement of the overall 13 miles. Had they not moved in there and had the benefit-cost ratio been favorable for inprovement, somebody would have spent money to make the improvement that they have already made. Is that not correct? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. That is correct, sir. I want to make absolutely clear that I pointed out the Chief of Engineers does not recommend this reimbursement. The Chief of Engineers recommends that Monsanto not be reimbursed. Mr. GRAY. The $1,500,000 cost for the 13-mile improvement is before this committee in the bill. The reimbursement is a separate piece of legislation? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Separate, yes, sir. The Chief of Engineers recommend that Monsanto not be required to pay half of the annual charges for the new work to be done. Mr. GRAY. Does the gentleman from New York understand that? Mr. McCARTHY. The Chief of Engineers does not recommend reimbursement. Colonel KRISTOFERSON. That is correct. He does not. Mr. GRAY. But that is a separate piece of legislation. Mr. McCARTHY. Yes; but it is related and I think germane to the discussion. Mr. GRAY. Yes; very much so. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you very much. Mr. GRAY. Thank you. TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, Oreg. Tillamook Bay and Bar project, Oregon, will be the next project considered. We have with us today Lt. Col. E. R. Preston, Congressman Wendell Wyatt, and Mr. Thomas J. Murray, of Portland, Oreg. We will first hear from Colonel Preston STATEMENT OF LT. COL. E. R. PRESTON, CORPS OF ENGINEERS— Resumed Colonel PRESTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Tillamook Bay is located approximately 50 miles south of the mouth of the Columbia River on the Pacific coast of Oregon. The bay is a tidal estuary about 6 miles long north to south which has a maximumn width of about 3 miles. Five small rivers, all rising in the coast range, flow into the bay. Tillamook County, with a 1960 population of 18,955, is a rugged, mountainous, timbered area of 1,130 square miles. The principal resource is timber although, in addition to the wood products industry, dairy products and fishing industries are also in evidence. At present there is an existing Federal navigation project which provides for a jetty 5,700 feet long on the north side of the entrance, a channel through the bar 18 feet in depth and additional channels, a turning basin and a small boat basin with approach thereto at Garibaldi, Oreg. The channels were completed in 1927 and other improvements made in later years extending to the rehabilitation of the outer 2,400 feet of the north jetty, now underway. Storms from the southwest have created pronounced difficulties for shipping using the entrance. Heavy waves frequently require vessels seeking to use the entrance to stand offshore until the entrance becomes calm enough to allow safe passage. The entrance is impassable to small boats and barge traffic for periods ranging up to 10 days and the resulting vessel delay time has forced cancellation of all water carrier service to this port. The last use of the entrance by commercial barges was in 1959; vessel traffic in the past 5 years has consisted of fishing vessels landing fish and crab caught in adjacent coastal waters, If the entrance is made reliable for use by oceangoing vessels, movement of lumber, logs, chips, and plywood and commercial fishing totaling an estimated 462,000 tons annually is expected for this port. The Chief of Engineers recommends modification of the existing navigation project to provide for an 8,000-foot long south jetty at the entrance to Tillamook Bay. The cost of this work is estimated at $9 million Federal, subject to certain items of local cooperation. The annual benefits are estimated at $570,000 with annual charges of $449,200, giving a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.3. The State of Oregon and Federal agencies concerned favor the project and the Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of the report to the Congress. That completes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GRAY. Thank you very much, Colonel. I am delighted to see our friend and colleague, Congressman Wyatt, this morning. We are happy to have you. You may proceed, Congressman, in your own fashion. STATEMENT OF HON. WENDELL WYATT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON Mr. WYATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a very short statement. to summarize this. In view of the time, I will attempt Mr. GRAY. Without objection, your entire statement will be placed in the record at this point. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN WENDELL WYATT, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM OREGON Mr. Chairman, I wish to express to you and the distinguished members of your committee my deep appreciation for affording me this opportunity to testify on behalf of our south jetty project, Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oreg., which, of course, is located in my congressional district. I have visited the project area many times and am thoroughly familiar with the most vital and urgent need for construction of the south jetty project. The economy of Tillamook Bay and its surrounding area depends very largely upon waterway facilities of Tillamook Bay. Commercial fishing, lumber, and related industries which provide most of the employment in the area are seriously hampered by lack of year-round navigable facilities. The bay entrance is absolutely impassable to barges and commercial boats for lengthy periods resulting in costly vessel delays. The situation at the bay entrance is so hazardous it has resulted in cancellation of all water carrier service. The serious decline in commerical fishing is directly attributable to the hazardous harbor entrance and lack of year-round fishing opportunities. The rehabilitation work of the existing Federal north jetty project at Tillamook Bay is progressing satisfactorily and is scheduled for completion next October 15. The south jetty project is vitally needed to make complete a safe and dependable bay entrance. This will permit restoration of water carrier service to the area which is so greatly needed to meet the shipping needs of our lumber industry and related industries to say nothing of the great boost it will give to revitalization of commercial fishing. Moreover, recreational boating is developing at breakneck speed and it is becoming an industry of great importance to the area. |