BAYOU LA BATRE, ALA.

Colonel YOUNG. Bayou La Batre, Ala., is on page 17 of the Senate report, sir.

Bayou La Batre is a small meandering stream about 10 miles long, flowing through coastal marshlands in southern Mobile County, Ala., 30 miles southwest of Mobile, Ala., and 18 miles east of Pascagoula, Miss. The major difficulties to navigation are the inadequate depths and widths in the existing channel. The Chief of Engineers recommends enlarging the existing channel generally along its present alinement and also easing the sharp bends in the upper part of the project at an estimated Federal cost of $262,000 subject to certain requirements of local cooperation. Local interests have indicated their willingness to comply with all requirements of local cooperation. The benefit-tocost ratio is 1.1 to 1. Comments of the State and Federal agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report.

(The statements of Congressman Jack Edwards and Congressman James Martin follow :)

STATEMENT OF HON. JACK EDWARDS, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM ALABAMA

Mr. Chairman, I want to give my enthusiastic support to the proposal for improvements in the Bayou La Batre channel as proposed by Senator John Sparkman. I have introduced a companion bill in the House. It is identified as H.R. 5030.

This is the appropriate time for authorizing a 12-foot channel in my opinion. The present condition of the channel is such that considerable work will be needed to recover the 9-foot depth already authorized. It is my understanding that $110,00 is budgeted for fiscal 1966 for this purpose.

My position is that for a total of approximately $262,000 the channel can be dredged to 12 feet. By attending to this matter now, we can save the $110,000 required to clean out the channel and bring it down to the presently authorized 9-foot depth. Here is an opportunity for real economy in Government. The cost of completing the work at a later date would, in all likelihood, be greater.

Mr. Chairman, the Corps of Engineers in July, 1964, recommended the 12foot channel in House Document No. 327 of the 88th Congress, 2d session. The 12-foot channel will bring solid opportunity for economic development along the stream and in the community of Bayou La Batre. The people of Bayou La Batre have been master boatbuilders for generations, but many orders have been lost because they cannot get the boats out to the Gulf of Mexico.

There are no better fishermen anywhere in the world than the citizens of the Bayou La Batre area. Their shrimp and seafood are marketed all over the Nation; and yet, when they come in with a successful catch, they must unload in Mississippi because they cannot get into their own port without tearing the bottom out of their boats. Mr. Chairman, to a historic and proud group of citizens, this is frustration of the highest order.

The improved navigational conditions will bring recreational opportunities also and will work to enhance the entire surrounding area.

Local interests are prepared to cooperate as required to the extent of furnishing needed easements for dredging and for spoil disposal. The project will be exceedingly welcome in the area.

I urge your favorable consideration.

DRAFT OF STATEMENT ON PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS BY CONGRESSMAN JAMES MARTIN

Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope this committee will approve two projects vital to the economy and development of the southern part of Alabama, and which will be helpful to the people of the entire State.

I refer to the Perdido Pass Channel project and the Bayou La Batre project. On both of these projects the local people have shown their willingness to

cooperate and to help bear the cost by accepting responsibility for the local share. The Corps of Engineers has completed its study of these projects and found them feasible. The Department of the Interior and the State of Alabama have both reported favorably.

Two of my colleagues in the House, Congressman William Dickinson and Congressman Jack Edwards who represent the districts directly involved have urged the approval of the projects as in the interest of the area.

With such unanimous support from all those concerned, I have no hesitancy in asking that the full amount of Federal participation asked be approved.

Mr. JONES. Now we go to the beach erosion projects, Colonel Young.

CLIFF WALK, NEWPORT, R.I.

Colonel YOUNG. Cliff Walk, Newport, R.I., is on page 72 of the Senate report.

Newport is located on Aquidneck Island near the mouth of the Narragansett Bay about 25 miles south of Providence, R.I. Continued erosion and retreat of the cliffs and bluffs for many years has resulted in destruction and loss of segments of Cliff Walk at a number of locations. The Chief of Engineers recommends construction of improvements which will provide shore protection for the area at an estimated Federal cost of $340,000 subject to certain items of local cooperation, including a cash contribution of $810,000. Local interests have indicated a willingness to comply with the requirements of local cooperation. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.3 to 1. Comments of the State and Federal agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report.

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J.

Mr. JONES. Atlantic City, N.J.

Colonel YOUNG. This project is on page 73 of the Senate report. The existing beach erosion project at Atlantic City, N.J., includes protective works on both the Absecon Inlet frontage and the ocean frontage. The project is completed except for part of the revetment, the outer portions of the Brigantine Island jetty, and initial beach fill. Completed increments of this project have resulted in substantial benefits including prevention of severe damage to property along the ocean frontage during the storm of March 1962. Completion of the initial beach fill and a program for periodic nourishment will insure continuation of the benefits from prevention of damages to public property and recreational benefits from the use of the publicly owned shores. The Chief of Engineers recommends Federal participation in the amount of one-half the initial nourishment in the form of reimbursement for work to be accomplished by local interests of which $205,000 would be the Federal share and the same participation in the amount of one-half the cost of periodic nourishment for a period of 10 years, of which the Federal share would be $138,000 annually, subject to certain requirements for local cooperation. Local interests have indicated their willingness to meet the requirements of local cooperation. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 3 to 1. Comments of the State and Federal agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report.

Mr. JONES. Are there any questions? (No response.)

The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report.

Mr. WRIGHT. Are there questions?

(No response.)

Mr. WRIGHT. If not, you might proceed to the Neuse River, N.C., project.

NEUSE RIVER, N.C.

Colonel YOUNG. Neuse River Basin, N.C., is on page 98 of the Senate report.

The Neuse River Basin is located in the eastern part of North Carolina and has a drainage area of approximately 5,710 square miles. This basin is subject to frequent and destructive flooding. The Chief of Engineers recommends construction of the Falls Dam and Reservoir in the interest of flood control and related purposes as the key project for the Neuse River Basin at an estimated Federal cost of $18,600,000 subject to certain items of local cooperation, including payment of all costs allocated to water supply presently estimated at $1,455,000 for construction and $10,000 annually for operation, maintenance, and replacement and to share the first cost and annual cost associated with recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement in ac cordance with the Water Project Recreation Act. Local interests have indicated their willingness to comply with the requirements of loca cooperation. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 3.3 to 1. Comments of the State and Federal agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report.

Mr. WRIGHT. Are there questions?

Mr. BALDWIN. You state that the Bureau of the Budget has no ob jection to the submission of the report. I notice that the Bureau ha some comments, saying "subject to further consideration with regar to questions raised by the Department of the Interior." This has t do with use of recreation, lack of cost data, and so on.

I take it that this indicates the Bureau of the Budget there for would not approve of the actual submision of an appropriation re quest until these three items shown here are worked out and clarified Is that your interpretation?

Colonel YOUNG. I believe so, sir. We have already discussed thi with the Bureau of the Budget. Actually it will have a favorabl effect on the benefit-to-cost ratio rather than an unfavorable effect an we would discuss this with the Bureau of the Budget at the time th President's budget is submitted to initiate preconstruction plannin for this project.

Mr. DORN. Further questions?

Mr. CRAMER. How much land in this area will be flooded as a resu of the basin being completed?

Let me ask another question while you are getting that information I note you have indicated the general plan includes 12 additional re ervoirs. Is the cost of those included in the estimated cost of $18 million?

Colonel YOUNG. No, sir. The $18.6 million is only for this reservo project.

In answer to your previous question, approximately 23,200 acres land would be inundated by the Falls Reservoir project.

Colonel YOUNG. Yes, sir.

Mr. WRIGHT. And placed back on the land?

Colonel YOUNG. Yes, sir.

Mr. WRIGHT. Further questions?

Mr. BALDWIN. In the last project there was a 50-50 relationship between Federal and non-Federal contributions. This shows a higher percentage of Federal contribution.

So that I may get a clear understanding, these are both beach erosion projects. You said you normally approach this on a 50-50 basis. Why does this vary?

Mr. WRIGHT. Would the local interests also contribute to the $29,500 a year? Would this account for that? Colonel YOUNG. No, sir, I don't believe so. I believe there is another reason I need to find here. I could provide it for the record, sir, because I do not seem to be able to find it now. I know there is an explanation for this.

Mr. BALDWIN. I hope so. I wanted the benefit of the explanation. Mr. WEINKAUFF. The beach erosion law passed in 1962 provides for a 70-percent contribution on the part of the Federal Government where there is a State amusement park. In other words, if the hinterland will be used as a park area, we go up as high as 70 percent as contrasted to the 50 percent in the usual case.

Mr. BALDWIN. In other words, if we are protecting public property it can go up to 70 percent Federal contribution and protecting private property it would be a 50-percent contribution?

Mr. WEINKAUFF. That is not quite so. In any case, there must be public use. Where there is a park in back of the beach, in order to avoid future damages for property being put in that area, we can go up to a 70-percent Federal contribution.

Colonel YOUNG. May I confirm what Mr. Weinkauff has stated? I believe I have the explanation in the report.

The study area meets the following criteria for 70-percent Federal participation as Mr. Weinkauff has indicated. The area is publicly owned. It includes a zone extending landward from which permanent human habitation shall be excluded; it includes but is not limited to recreational beaches; it has an active program for conservation and development of natural resources of the environment; it extends landward a sufficient distance to include natural features which serve to protect the uplands from damage; finally, it provides essentially full park facilities for appropriate public use. It is a State park.

Mr. BALDWIN. Under what circumstances would you use the 50percent basis?

Colonel YOUNG. Where all of these conditions are not met, and usually the fact there is not sufficient land landward which is available for public use which provides for no private habitation or any of the other features I mentioned here.

Mr. BALDWIN. In other words, if there might be a combination of partly public and partly private you can cut down the Federal contribution?

Colonel YOUNG. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, on the solely private there is no Federal participation. It is 100-percent local cost.

Mr. BALDWIN. I understand that, but where you have a 50-percent contribution then there must be, going back to Perth Amboy, there must

Colonel YOUNG. I am not familiar with the Columbia River Basin. Mr. WEINKAUFF. Normally, Mr. Cramer, in these large basins, we recommend specific projects, and normally Congress in its report designates the specific project for authorization substantially in accordance with the report of the Chief of Engineers.

However, for the information of the Congress we present the other reservoirs and other features of the long-range plan which we looked at during the course of our study. It is essentially a guidance, or information, approach rather than specific authorization for these projects.

But even on the Columbia River we recommended specific projects, which the Congress then selected for specific authorization.

Mr. CRAMER. I understand that. However, I also understand that any time a request is made with regard to any one of those suggested reservoir sites or projects that just your having suggested it is all that is required.

Mr. WEINKAUFF. But they must come back to us for a specific recommendation and to Congress again for authorization for a specific project.

Mr. CRAMER. I think I have made my point.

Mr. DORN. Further questions?

I might say to the joint subcommittee that if possible we shall try to get through with these remaining four or five projects before the second bell.

The next one is New Bern, N.C.

NEW BERN, N.C.

Colonel YOUNG. The New Bern report is found on page 99 of the Senate report, sir.

New Bern is located at the confluence of the Trent and Neuse Rivers in eastern North Carolina. The New Bern area is subject to frequent and severe hurricane tidal flooding. The Chief of Engineers recommends construction of a hurricane tidal barrier at the Cherry PointWilkinson Point site on the Neuse River at an estimated Federal cost of $10,400,000 subject to certain requirements of local cooperation, including a cash contribution of $4,448,000. Local interests have indicated their willingness to comply with the requirements of local cooperation. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.1 to 1. Comments of the State and Federal agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report. However, the Bureau notes that the economic justification of the project requires inclusion of certain incidental requirements which will require careful review before a request for funds to initiate construction is submitted.

Mr. DORN. Any questions?

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

The Bureau of the Budget comment says this 1.1 ratio is based upor two things, neither of which at the time have been seriously considered What is your comment on that?

Colonel YOUNG. We believe that the recreation benefit which ha been included, sir, will materialize. We also believe that the savin in terms of the bridge may materialize in the future, although there a no indications at the present time that this bridge will be built.