As I understand it, all this is admitted by the various levels of study and review within the Corps of Engineers, by the Army, and even by the Bureau of the Budget. The executive agencies concerned also recognize that the benefit-to-cost ratio of 11.121 is very high and favorable. It is shocking to me, therefore, that there should be any further question, but question there apparently is: Should the Federal Government disregard the history of Caddo Lake and Caddo Dam? Should the Federal Government deny the clearly predictable future of Caddo Lake as an abundant water resource and a navigable waterway-a future even now being planned by that hardworking, highly practical group, the Corps of Engineers? It is my earnest plea that this subcommittee authorize this project as recommended by the Chief of Engineers in his report as printed in Senate Document 39 of the 89th Congress. The recommendations of the Secretary of the Army (which accompanied the Chief of Engineers report) are no doubt well-meaning, but in my opinion are not acceptable and are unworkable. The complexity, the confusion, and the additional legislation made necessary by the Secretary's recommendations, if subjected to that familiar test, a benefit-to-cost ratio, would, I am sure, result in a minus quantity. The report of the Chief of Engineers is, in my opinion, the best and only solution to the problem at Caddo Lake. I sincerely thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of your committee, for permitting me to make this statement. Mr. JONES. Taylor Bayou, Tex. Colonel Kristoferson. STATEMENT OF LT. COL. RALPH S. KRISTOFERSON, CORPS OF ENGINEERS Resumed Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the report deals with flood control on Taylors Bayou in Texas. TAYLORS BAYou, Tex. It can be found on pages 131 through 133 of the Senate report. This report is prepared in response to section 11 of the Flood Control Act of 1946. Taylors Bayou and its tributaries drain about 586 square miles of land generally to the west of Port Arthur, Tex., emptying into the Sabine-Neches Waterway and Sabine Lake south of Port Arthur. Nearly 80,000 acres of land are subject to periodic flooding because of inadequate channels to carry the runoff from heavy rains. Local interests desire improvement of main channels and outlet channels to handle flood discharges on Taylors Bayou and a main tributary, Hillebrandt Bayou. The Chief of Engineers recommends improvement of Taylors Bayou for flood control and drainage, by enlarging and rectifying about 40 miles of channel in the watershed, and by building a diversion channel and salt water gate at the lower end of the watershed. Based on 1961 prices, the Federal first cost of the recommended plan of improvement is $6,290,000, and the non-Federal first cost is $12,450,000. Annual benefits are estimated at $3,926,000. Annual charges, including operation and maintenance, are estimated at $1,298,800. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 3 to 1. Local interests are required to furnish all lands, easements, and rights-of-way for construction; make alterations and relocation of structures and utilities; contribute in cash 6.3 percent of the construction cost of the work to be done on the Federal project-presently estimated at $421,000-or construct such additional items of work as may be agreed upon by the Federal Government and local interests 52-529-65-pt. 1--23 as being equivalent; hold and save the United States free from damages; maintain and operate the project; prevent encroachment on the flood-carrying capacity of the channel; and construct and maintain the local drainage works required to fully and effectively use the improved outlet system. Comments of the State of Texas and the Federal agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget does not believe that sufficient reason exists for crediting local interests for work accomplished by such interests prior to project authorization; and accordingly recomments that the conditions of local cooperation be applied only to the now remaining work recommended for construction. On this basis, the Bureau notes that the estimated cost of the project would be $7,916,000, with local interests bearing 36.8 percent, or $2,912,000, of the total estimated first cost of the project. The Bureau of the Budget also notes that the information on which the report is based is in large part over 10 years old and that no specific justification is presented for the substantial increase in benefits which is incorporated in the updating of the report by the Chief of Engineers. Accordingly, if the project is authorized, the Bureau of the Budget expects a reevaluation of the project prior to any request for funds to initiate construction. The Bureau of the Budget advises that subject to consideration of its views, there would be no objection to the submission of the report to the Congress. The Secretary of the Army concurs in the view of the Bureau of the Budget. This, Mr. Chairman, concludes my statement. Mr. JONES. Colonel, let me call your attention to page 133 of the Senate report, the last paragraph: The committee notes that the plan of improvement would reduce flooding on nearly 80,000 acres of agricultural land near Port Arthur and Beaumont, Tex., and recommends authorization of the project in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers. Is that recognition that we are going to abandon, I hope for all time, this drainage theory that crops up every once in awhile when you undertake to do flood control projects? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. The theory has not been abandoned in this case. It is the basis upon which cost sharing has been calculated. Mr. JONES. That is the intention of the Bureau of the Budget? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Yes, sir. Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman? Mr. JONES. Yes, Mr. Baldwin. Mr. BALDWIN. Colonel, as I understand it, as the corps has submitted this program to us, your estimated total cost is $18,740,000. But if we take the theory of the Bureau of the Budget there should not be any credit for the work already done in the past, then the cost of the project, just going forward from where we are now to the future completion, would be only $7,916,000; is this correct? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. That is generally correct. The larger figure that you first mentioned is the total cost of providing flood control and drainage within the basin. This includes both local costs for local drainage and costs for the Federal portion of the work. The latter figure that you gave is the estimated first cost of the new work that is necessary on the flood control portion of the project. Mr. BALDWIN. Basically, if we were to authorize the project as modified by the comments of the Bureau of the Budget and the Secretary of the Army, we would be authorizing the project at a total of $7,916,000 as distinct from the evaluation based on the original Chief of Engineers project; is that true? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Colonel KRISTOFERSON. The total first cost of the work remaining to be done is $7,916,000. The Chief of Engineers, the Bureau of the Budget, and the Secretary of the Army all agree on that figure. The only differences lie in the matter of how that cost should be shared between the Federal Government and local interests. As recommended by the Chief of Engineers, the Federal cost would be $6,290,000 and the non-Federal cost $1,626,000 which includes a cash contribution of $421,000. As recommended by the Bureau of the Budget, the Federal cost would be $5,004,000 and the non-Federal cost $2,912,000 which includes a cash contribution of $1,707,000. The Secretary of the Army concurs with the Bureau of the Budget. The amount of cash contribution by local interests toward the cost of the new work is the point of difference. This is aside, of course, from the matter of crediting local interests with the value of previously accomplished work. That is a different concept. Mr. BALDWIN. I understand these are two separate concepts. What I am driving at is if we were to authorize the project as modified by the Bureau of the Budget and Secretary of the Army, we are, in essence, authorizing the project which has a total estimated cost of, according to their complements, of $7,916,000-period? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Correct, sir; it also is the cost estimate of the Chief of Engineers. Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you. Mr. WRIGHT. Colonel Kristoferson, I am a little concerned about these comments by the Bureau of the Budget and apparently ready concurrence in them by the Secretary of the Army. Apparently in the initial evaluation of this project by the division engineer and by the Chief of Engineers, credit was given to local interests for work already accomplished on their own initiative before completion of this project; is that correct? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. That is correct, sir. Mr. WRIGHT. And yet the Bureau of the Budget takes the position that because they have gone ahead on their own and shown the initiative and determination to do their part, we penalize them, in a sense, for having done that when we take away this bit, do we not? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. That viewpoint can be held, sir. Mr. WRIGHT. Well, does it seem to you wise that we make it less attractive for these fellows to go out on their own and try to solve their problems? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. No, it does not, sir. I would like to comment on that. I would like to preface my remarks by saying that the Chief of Engineers supports the policy that credit should not generally be given for work done previous to authorization of Federal works. There are extenuating circumstances in this case and they revolve principally around the fact that this report has taken a very long time to reach the Congress. It has been under study and revision for many years. A great deal of the work that was at one time interwoven with the Federal project has been done by local interests in anticipation of authorization of this project. A great deal of the expense that local interests have borne was in the faith that this project would be built. Mr. WRIGHT. Well, it seems to me that this new policy, apparently insisted upon by the Bureau of the Budget, is really not quite fair to local interests. They have gone out on their own in faith a project was going to be built in an effort to cooperate with the Federal Government and to help themselves as well, and to demonstrate their willingness to do their part. It seems that now we are penalizing them. Whereas, if they had not done this, if they had sat back and waited for the Federal Government first to move, they would get more credit, ironically, and it would cost them less in additional local cost sharing at this point; would it not? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. It would appear that way, sir. Mr. WRIGHT. Well now, the other question also relates to a matter of policy that seems to be contained in the Bureau of the Budget comment, and that concerns the requirement that local interests contribute not only cost of land, but the relocations and 50 percent of the total cost allocated for drainage purposes. At the time, you speak now in terms of relocating what, pipelines and utility lines and other things of this kind? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Yes; we do. We speak in terms of pipelines, sewerlines, waterlines; there may be utility lines, telephone lines, that sort of thing. Mr. WRIGHT. I am thinking from the standpoint of the farmer, let's say, who owns some property on which some of these lines have been established, pipelines, utility lines, and things of this kind. They were put there initially under the right of eminent domain. The farmer did not ask for them. He probably got very little in exchange for them, for the right to put them there. Yet he is going to be expected apparently to bear his share of the cost for removing them from there. Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Sir, this is a matter of the law. I think it is based upon the assumption that before he agrees to undertake such obligations, he convinces himself the benefits he will receive will exceed his cost. Mr. WRIGHT. Does this very favorable cost-benefit ratio, apparently 3 to 1, seem a little unnecessarily harsh on people of that kind? I have no further questions. Mr. JONES. Thank you very much. Thank you, Colonel. We have with us this morning our distinguished colleague, the Honorable Hale Boggs, who is here concerning the Lake Pontchartrain project in Louisiana. We are pleased to have you, Mr. Boggs. STATEMENT OF HON. HALE BOGGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA—Resumed Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I will not take but a minute. I know my colleague, Mr. Brooks, is waiting, and others are waiting. My colleague from the First District, Mr. Hébert, has already appeared here earlier. I would simply like to say that this project has been studied thoroughly, has been approved by the engineers from the district through the Board of Engineers. It is really a three-pronged project; it is hurricane protection, it is flood control, and it is reclamation. The engineers in effect reclaimed part of this area 20 years ago after a very disastrous hurricane. The result has been a fantastic increase in property values. The economic ratio is way above anything that is normally required, and I think this project is deserving of most serious consideration. Among other things, it provides hurricane and flood control protection for the very giant space installations we now have in south Louisiana and other industrial and defense installations. I do not want to take any further time of the committee. I think a joint statement was filed here this morning by Congressman Hébert and myself. I subscribe in full to that statement. Mr. JONES. Thank you very much. Mr. BOGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members of the committee. Mr. JONES. This project we have under consideration has been with us, as the colonel stated, for a number of years. It is a task for the Corps of Engineers and the committee to deal with. But throughout this time, we have had interest and help of the distinguished Member from Texas, the Honorable Jack Brooks. Mr. Brooks, we will be pleased to hear from you again on this proposition. STATEMENT OF HON. JACK BROOKS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS; ACCOMPANIED BY W. D. NORWOOD, CHAIRMAN OF DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 6; JACK MOORE, MAYOR, BEAUMONT, TEX; LE ROY MCCALL, CHAIRMAN, DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 3; M. A. FURTH, CHAIRMAN, DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 7; T. B. ELLISON AND LAMAR LAWSON, COMMISSIONERS, JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEX; W. F. LANGHAM, BEAUMONT, TEX; HOWARD J. HICKS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, BEAUMONT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; LEO GRANT, SUPERINTENDENT, DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 7; AND L. V. NORRIS, ENGINEER, DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 6. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate your affording me this opportunity to appear before your distinguished subcommittee to testify in favor of a project of vital importance to the economy of southeast Texas. The project I refer to is the Taylors Bayou flood control project. |