Then we have perhaps 20 percent of the cost of the survey included in the budget in the first year, 20 percent more the next year, and it takes 5 years to complete a survey of a really disastrous flood area, and there may have been another flood in that area in the meantime, and the people out there begin to feel that Congress has forgotten all about them, and that the corps has forgotten about them because they cannot figure out what is going on during all that period of time. They cannot figure out why it takes 5 years to do a survey which might cost $100,000.

Then after all that procedure is followed the corps has to go through mechanics set up by law, hold hearings, get clearance of the Army Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, clearance by the State agencies and the Budget Bureau, which takes a couple of more years more in most cases.

I personally think this is a gap which has to receive greater attention than it has so far received.

I realize this requires some missionary work, perhaps both by the corps and Congress and the Budget Bureau, but certainly it requires the corps' active work as well as the Congress and the Budget Bureau. I think we have to press this more actively because I do not think we are handling this with the proper degree of expedition, and in many cases this affects the benefit-cost ratio.

Meantime the area has changed, damages are greater, and it affects the entire feasibility of the project.

General GRAHAM. You very well stated the case, Mr. Baldwin. It shows this is essentially a long-range program which in many aspects is not immediately responsive to restoration or rehabilitation of an area in which a flood has recently occurred.

I believe there are actually some 18 steps between conception of a project and initiation of construction. Many of these steps are matters of legislation as well as of administrative practice.

We are concerned by this long survey period. We think we have made some in-house improvements in the way of better staffing to handle this survey program. We have given it top attention in my office, more than any other single aspect of our activities.

We have hired and brought in a number of competent people, particularly in the last 4 or 5 years, including economists and other specialists who can help us wrestle with these problems more expeditiously.

We certainly will work with the Congress in every way in an effort to shorten this survey period.

Mr. BALDWIN. If I might make one more comment. I happen to have a district which right now has three different kinds of activity going on simultaneously-soil conservation projects under the Soil Conservation Service procedure; Bureau of Reclamation projects under the Bureau of Reclamation procedure; Corps of Engineers projects under the existing procedure for Corps of Engineers projects. The Corps of Engineers procedures take far longer, based upon our own experience in my own district to go from a standpoint of the first authorization of any kind, administrative or legislative, to the point of first construction, far longer, than either the Soil Conservation projects on the average or the Bureau of Reclamation projects on the average. This is what concerns me.

I hope that you will review this very seriously. If it requires some change in the legislative mechanics, all right. I think the budgetary problem is the worst one. Whatever mechanics you find should be changed, I hope you will submit recommendations to us so we can consider how we can correct this.

Mr. JONES. I would like to respond to Mr. Baldwin's suggestion. Certainly the committee intends to give full consideration to the observations he just made.

In the year 1952 this committee made a study of just that problem. We found out that the average time lapse from the time a survey resolution was passed by this committee until actual construction commenced with an average of 10 years and 3 months, so it is not responsive to the needs.

In order for us to handle a program geared to proper seasons the time must be reduced.

We expect to go into that matter, Mr. Baldwin, and we will ask the gentleman from the corps to see what we can work out with regard to the mechanics of reducing the timespan involved.

Mr. CLAUSEN. I simply want to reaffirm the point Mr. Baldwin hast made. We have a similar problem.

General Graham, can you advise this committee what the Congress might do, what this committee might do, to assist in expediting this? I am sure our chairman is fully aware of this because he has seen firsthand some of the problems involved.

Is there anything that the Congress can do or do you feel frankly that the holdup is the Bureau of the Budget?

Mr. JONES. Mr. Clausen, if you will withhold that question, we expect to have a day or two to go into that matter quite thoroughly.

Mr. HALLECK. In view of the fact some of us are talking about matters in their own districts, and due to the reference by our chairman that there is a 10-year average delay, it might be well for me to point out at this time I have been in Congress 30 years, perhaps longer than anybody else, and I have been trying to get a public port built on Lake Michigan. We are right down to the wire now, but I guess perhaps we have had to take a little longer than some of your people might have. We are still living in hopes.

Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions at this time.
Mr. JONES. Mr. McCarthy?

Mr. MCCARTHY. General, this is one of the most formidable problems facing us today, the problem of water pollution. Certainly the Corps of Engineers has been very helpful in this area generally.

However, we have a situation on Lake Erie-this is true in Cleveland and true in Buffalo-where the Corps of Engineers goes up, in my case to the Buffalo River, which is one of the most terribly polluted streams in the United States, just an industrial dump, and the corps goes in and you keep it safe for navigation. You dredge up this silt.

Then what do you do with it? This is the most terribly polluted substance that I think you can possibly conceive any place. It is filled with all sorts of chemicals and wastes of every kind.

Then they take it out and dump it into Lake Erie. In some cases it is dumped where one of the towns nearby draws its water. They allege that the taste of the water comes from the pollution.

Aside from that, though, it would seem to me there should be some way-in the case of Ohio and I assume this is true all along because I don't want to isolate it to my area-couldn't that be dumped in the ground to some waste area and just bury it?

General GRAHAM. This is a rather commonplace problem today. There is a similar situation in the River Rouge at Detroit where we are dredging a heavily polluted river for purposes of maintenance of navigation in that stream.

However, in this case, with the cooperation of the local interests, we began some years ago to dispose of this material on a levee island so at least it is not put back into the water.

It may be that in the case of the Buffalo River we can do something similar to this.

Colonel Neff, the district engineer at Buffalo, got into this problem 2 or 3 weeks ago and now is investigating to see what can be done in the way of a better disposal practice in that area.

Of course, we are not adding to the pollution by our dredging but stirring up the material and creating something of a nuisance by our method of handling it. That problem is being looked into.

Generally the answer is that something can be done to get rid of these polluted materials but it will cost more than present practices. Where the local interests are responsible for the provision of disposal areas it is a local problem as well as a Federal problem.

Mr. McCARTHY. I don't want to restrict this to the Buffalo River. General. I am sure you will find a cooperative spirit among the people in trying to work out some new system of disposal.

I certainly thank you very much and it is good to hear you are concerned about it and are looking into it.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Edmondson?

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, the estimate which has been made of the requirement for a capital improvement program which would meet what the corps estimates are the present needs, stated on page 7 of your statement, shows about a $3-billion level at fiscal year 1980.

Don't you believe that even if we move at the pace you have suggested from the current $1.3-billion level to a $3-billion level in fiscal 1980 that we will still be falling short by a sizable measure in meeting the requirements of the Nation in 1980?

General GRAHAM. This estimate is based largely on the Senate select committee reports of 1960. There has been no similar updating or intensive investigation of those assumptions in this period of 4 or 5 years.

It may well be that a revision of the assumptions of that report would show greater total requirements by 1980, but at the present time that is the best information we have.

Mr. EDMONDSON. I am familiar with the work of that committee. I think they did a great job. Oklahoma was proud of the leadership of Senator Kerr in that endeavor, but I think I heard him remark on more than one occasion following that study that while it appeared to be a pretty ambitious statement of future requirements, he had become convinced it would fall short of what would really be needed. I am personally of the opinion that this is one area in which the sooner we raise our sights and move from the present level of expenditure to something in the neighborhood of $3-billion level on water

resource development, the better we will be prepared for the future requirements of our economy and our society.

I know we just returned from a trip out into the Colorado-Kansas flood area with Colonel Kristoferson giving us fine backstopping along the road. There is no question but that in that area the need from a flood control standpoint alone was far in excess of what I understand to be the present program for flood control.

When you move over into the problem of water supply as well, and a comprehensive basin development, it seems to me that while this figure might seem to be a pretty dramatic figure, it is on the conservative side, and by a sizable margin.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to comment at this time.

Mr. JONES. Are there further questions?

Mr. HARSHA. I have no questions at this time. I merely wanted to welcome General Graham back before our committee and thank him for giving us the valuable observations he has made today.

General GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Harsha.

Mr. JONES. General, what is the status of the surveys of the Southeast Study Commission?

General GRAHAM. If the chairman is referring to the report of the Southeast Study Commission, this is a framework type study which has been completed. It, however, did not recommend authorization of any specific project.

Mr. JONES. It has been completed?

General GRAHAM. Yes.

Mr. JONES. Funds were made available for this year?

General GRAHAM. No, sir.

Mr. JONES. What about the Texas Study Commission?

General GRAHAM. The same status, Mr. Chairman. It has been completed.

Mr. JONES. And the Northeast study?

General GRAHAM. I assume you refer to what we call the NEN YAC study. This also has been completed.

Mr. JONES. Yes.

General GRAHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. JONES. What was the total amount expended on those surveys? General GRAHAM. I will have to supply that information for the record.

Mr. JONES. Please do that, General.

General GRAHAM. Yes, sir.

(The information referred to follows:)

New England-New York study, $6 million; Southeast Basin study, $2,835,000; Southeast Basin study, $4,100,000.

Mr. JONES. Thank you, General, again.

Mr. FALLON. May I ask one question, perhaps not related to the subject we are considering here this morning?

General, for some time in visiting the quarters in which you operate I have noticed a sort of inadequacy in your operational space.

Has any movement been started on the part of the Army Engineers to acquire space that would be adequate for the tremendous job which the Army Engineers are called upon to do?

General GRAHAM. I appreciate your observation, Mr. Fallon. One thing we have been able to gain from this temporary space is that we couldn't be accused of building monuments for ourselves. It is true, though, that we have been in Tempo 7 at Gravelly Point next to the National Airport since 1946, about 19 years. I believe a contract is about to be let for the new Forrestal Building at 10th and Independence, a complex of three buildings actually.

As I understand it, this will accommodate about 6,000 employees and these will be about evenly divided between the Army and the Air Force, and I understand that space is being reserved for us. This would take about 1,000 employees, military and civilian.

Mr. FALLON. I know the Army Engineers do not desire to build monuments. You are a working force and it is a very practical operation. I say that because you came in here this morning and although we have no monument built here, it might be humble, it is practical and serves our purpose very well.

I am just wondering whether you might catch up with the growing economy such as Congress has.

General GRAHAM. We hope to be in this building in October of 1967. Mr. FALLON. That is fine.

Thank you very much.

Mr. JONES. The members will find on their desks a list of projects being presented by Colonel Young.

I note we are taking these by area, both rivers and harbors and flood control projects.

Also we have been handed a bill reported out of the Senate today and it is pending before the Senate.

There is also a report which accompanies S. 2300.

These are the only copies we have at the moment, so be sure to keep them and bring them back.

Colonel YOUNG. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittees on Rivers and Harbors, and Flood Control, it is a pleasure for me to appear this morning to present 31 projects in the Atlantic regions. These projects are all contained in S. 2300, the proposed Senate omnibus bill.

I would like to proceed now, Mr. Chairman, if I may, with the projects.

Mr. JONES. Very well.

TOWN AND WEYMOUTH-FORE RIVERS, MASS.

Colonel YOUNG. The combination of Town and Fore Rivers forms an important component of the Greater Boston Harbor in Massachusetts. The major difficulties to navigation are the sharp channel bends and the lack of sufficient depths, widths, and maneuvering basins to accommodate the vessels now using the existing navigation facilities. The Chief of Engineers recommends deepening and widening of channels, deepening and enlarging of an existing maneuvering basin and provision of an additional turning and maneuvering basin at an estimated Federal cost of $12,500,000 subject to certain requirements of local cooperation. Local interests have indicated a willingness to meet the local cooperation requirements. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 3.4 to 1. Comments of the State and Federal agencies are