In the flood control category, we are requesting the adoption of three projects, each of which has a rather high amount of local participation. In all three projects, the fundamental source of their need may be traced to the rapidiy expanding population and development of facilities to supply their requirements. The southwest Dade County project has become necessary because the fast spreading population in the region has forced the development of lands for agricultural use in areas which are subject to alternating periods of surpluses and deficiencies of water. Under the water control plan devised for this project, local interests will assume a higher share of the cost than is customary for projects of this type, approximately 46 percent.

In Hendry County, water control plans previously developed have been reviewed and revised to include effects of recent changes in land use patterns. The revised plans now call for local participation amounting to about 24 percent of the project cost.

In the Sarasota area, intensive development and usage of the heavily populated Phillippi Creek Basin have produced conditions which result in severe flood damages when unusual storms occur. For a project which will afford a reasonable degree of flood alleviation in this basin, local interests will be responsible for nearly 42 percent of the cost.

Two urgently needed beach erosion projects are included in our request. They are located along the highly populous lower east coast of the State, one at Fort Pierce and the other covering the entire coastline of Broward County. Preservation of this valuable natural resource is a matter of vital concern to Florida as well as to our Nation. At Fort Pierce, local interests will bear about one-half of the project cost, and at Broward County the participation of local interests will be 80 percent of the project cost.

Biscayne Bay at Miami is one of the few places in the United States located in the usual path of severe hurricanes where physical conditions are such that protective measures can be provided to afford a reasonable degree of relief from tidal flooding during hurricanes. Nearly one-third of the project cost will be

borne by local interests.

With that brief summary of our project requests, I should like to leave with you for the record and for review as you may desire, a statement of the Florida Board of Conservation which includes a more detailed discussion of the individual projects.

Some of the projects which I have included in my statement may not have yet been presented officially to you. My statement is made in hopes that all of these projects will reach your committee before the bill becomes final.

I should like to assure you that if you should desire any additional information or testimony concerning any of these projects, I will be happy to make arrangements to respond to your requests.

Please allow me to express my sincere thanks for your courtesy in arranging for this presentation.

Mr. BLATNIK. Colonel, you are also to describe the Shrewsbury River in New Jersey.

Colonel YOUNG. Yes, sir.

Mr. BLATNIK. Will you please proceed?

Colonel YOUNG. Thank you.

Sir, this proposed navigation project is submitted in response to resolutions by the House Public Works Committee adopted on June 2, 1949, and April 21, 1950.

SHREWSBURY RIVER, N.J.

The Shrewsbury River drains an area of approximately 124 square miles entirely within Monmouth County in northeastern New Jersey. The river is a tidal basin consisting of the North and South Branches and the main stem which flows northerly for about 3 miles to discharge into Sandy Hook Bay. The Shrewsbury River is separated from the Atlantic Ocean by a barrier beach varying in width from 100 to 1,500 feet and varying in elevation from 5 to 10 feet above mean sea level.

This barrier beach, known as Sandy Hook, extends northward from the headland at Monmouth Beach, a distance of about 11 miles. The

northern section of the peninsula is owned by the United States and is occupied by the Fort Hancock Military Reservation.

Local interests desire an inlet from Shrewsbury River to the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of Spermaceti Cove near Highlands, N.J., in order to provide quick access to a safe harbor, and to decrease the traveltime for recreational boats, sports, fishing boats, and commercial fishing craft from Sandy Hook Bay to the Atlantic Ocean.

The Chief of Engineers recommends construction of an inlet across the neck of Sandy Hook peninsula consisting of an entrance channel 200 feet wide and 15 feet deep, an interior channel 200 feet wide and 9 feet deep, with jetties to protect the entrance channel and bulkheads to protect the land cut, and a six-lane fixed bridge across the land cut with a minimum vertical navigation clearance of 35 feet above mean high water.

The total estimated Federal cost is $4,090,000 subject to certain items of local cooperation, including a cash contribution of 50 percent of the first cost of construction, an amount presently estimated at $4,090,000. Local interests will also be required to provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way outside the limits of federally owned lands, including suitable areas for the disposal of spoil. Finally, the local interests will be required to assume all obligations of owning, operating and maintaining the highway bridge after construction. Local interests have indicated their willingness and ability to meet the requirements of local cooperation.

The total estimated annual benefits are $715,200 and the total estimated charges are $619,500 resulting in a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.2 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. BLATNIK. Thank you, Colonel.

Next is a member of the committee, Congressman Jim Howard. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES J. HOWARD, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. HOWARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask unanimous consent to place a statement in the record immediately following the remarks of Colonel Young. Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection, so ordered.

(The document follows:)

STATEMENT BY HON. JAMES J. HOWARD, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM NEW JERSEY

Mr. Chairman, first let me express my appreciation to my colleagues for allowing me to testify before you today.

As a member of this important Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors I respectfully urge favorable consideration of this project in my district which will not only benefit the general area involved, but the entire State of New Jersey. Some of the facts concerning this project are:

Location.-In Monmouth County in the northeastern part of coastal New Jersey about 20 miles south of the Battery in New York City.

Authority.-Resolutions by the House Public Works Committee adopted June 2, 1949, and April 21, 1950.

Existing project.-Provides in general for a channel 12 feet deep and 300 feet wide, following the westerly shore from deep water in Sandy Hook Bay for a distance of 2.2 miles, thence 9 feet deep and 150 feet wide for a distance of about 6.8 miles and branch channels with depths of 6 feet and widths of 100 and 150 feet.

Recommended plan of improvement.—Provides for construction of an inlet across the neck of Sandy Hook Peninsula, between Spermaceti Cove and Island Beach, consisting of an entrance channel 200 feet wide and 15 feet deep; an interior channel 200 feet wide and 9 feet deep with suitable widening in the approach to the existing Shrewsbury River channel; jetties to protect the entrance channel and bulkheads to protect the land cut; and a six-lane, fixed bridge across the land cut with a minimum vertical navigation clearance of 35 feet above mean high water.

Navigation problem.-Local interests desire an inlet from Shrewsbury River to the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of Spermaceti Cove, near Highlands, N.J. This would provide quick access to a safe harbor and would decrease the travel time to the ocean.

Local cooperation.-Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, outside the limits of the federally owned lands, required for construction and subsequent maintenance of the project and for aids to navigation upon the request of the Chief of Engineers, including suitable areas determined by the Chief of Engineers to be required in the general public interest 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 that may result from the construction works and maintenance of the recommended improvement; provide a cash contribution of 50 percent of the first cost of constructing the improvement, an amount presently estimated at $4,090,000, to be paid in a single lump-sum payment prior to commencement of construction subject to adjustment after final costs have been determined; assume all obligations of owning, operating, and maintaining the highway bridge, with such obligations to be assumed by local interests upon final completion of its construction; assign to a competent and properly constituted public body the power to regulate the use, growth, and free development of adequate boating facilities in the area to be served by the inlet, with the understanding that such facilities will be open to all on equal terms; and provide, maintain, and operate without cost to the United States, necessary mooring and terminal facilities and utilities, including an adequate public landing or wharf with provisions for the sale of motor fuel, lubricants, and potable water, available to all on equal terms. Local interests have furnished assurances that they will provide the items of local cooperation.

Comments of the State and Federal agencies.—

Department of the Interior: Favorable.

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: Favorable.
Department of Commerce: Favorable.

State of New Jersey: Favorable.

Comments of the Bureau of the Budget.-No objection.

I am vitally interested in seeing this important project included in the omnibus. rivers and harbors bill which I feel certain we will pass this session.

I must point out that at present boats going into the ocean from the Shrewsbury and Naveskink Rivers now have to travel an additional 10 miles to get around the "Hook" section. It is a long and sometimes dangerous trip.

Some persons have asked whether outgoing tides might be so strong that, after an inlet was cut, the tides would pull contaminated waters from lower New York Bay into our Shrewsbury River which is relatively clean. We have been previously advised that this would not occur. Only today I had the opportunity to question Col. Crawford Young of the Corps of Engineers on this matter. Colonel Young said this matter will again be restudied in order to give further assurances of the salinity and quality of the water that will be in the bay as a result of the project.

Another part of the project lists a six-lane bridge. It occurred to me that we might be able to have a four-lane bridge in order to cut down on the cost. This would enhance the chances of a favorable action by this subcommittee and also make it easier to obtain an appropriation for the project after it was approved by Congress. I have been advised that the six lanes are necessary because the Air Defense Command requires that two lanes be kept open for military use at all times.

I also want to explore the possibility of making this inlet available to the many sailing vessels by either lowering the proposed 35-foot bridge and putting an opening in the middle or having the bridge built higher. If this is done the bridge would be high enough to accommodate all the power boats which may be 90 percent of the traffic and the bridge would only have to be open for sailing vessels.

Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to testify on this proposed project. I urge its acceptance by the committee.

Mr. HOWARD. I do have a few quick questions I would like to ask for the record. First, I would like to note these resolutions were introduced by my predecessor, Mr. Auchincloss, in 1949 and 1950, to show the people of New Jersey are indeed a patient breed.

Colonel, concerning the 35-foot clearance for the bridge, is there or can there be a study to determine whether in the interest of including the many sailing vessels, none of which would be able to utilize this inlet under the 35-foot clearance, a study to determine whether it might be feasible to either have a lower clearance with opening or a higher clearance for the bridge?

Colonel YOUNG. Yes, sir; the project provides for a minimum vertical clearance of 35 feet at the present time. This would be studied during the preconstruction planning phase. The economics involved in raising the bridge versus lowering the bridge somewhat and putting some type of lift mechanism in would be studied. If a lift mechanism was put in, the operations and maintenance costs, which would be a responsibility of the local interests under the terms of the project of course, would probably be increased somewhat. But this would be studied in the preconstruction planning phase of the project.

Mr. HOWARD. Thank you.

Concerning this six-lane highway, this is a terminal road. For the record, could you state why a six-lane highway or bridge would be used there?

Colonel YOUNG. Yes, sir. The Air Defense Command activities at Fort Hancock require that two lanes of the bridge be opened at all times for military-type traffic and Air Denfense Command activities. Mr. HOWARD. Thank you. One final question concerning the possibility of an inflow of water from the New York Harbor area. Is it contemplated that a study will be made to concern the quality of low water which will be in Sandy Hook Bay if we build this project? Colonel YOUNG. Yes, sir. The Fish and Wildlife people, in commenting on this report, and also the Public Health Service, were

worried somewhat about changing the salinity concentration, and also the pollution problem that might occur in Sandy Hook Bay as a result of cutting this new inlet. A study of these two problems will be conducted during the preconstruction planning phase.

Mr. HOWARD. Thank you, Colonel.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you.

Colonel, you are also in charge of the Savannah Harbor project in Georgia?

Colonel YOUNG. Yes, sir.

Mr. BLATNIK. Wll you please give us a quick summary description of the geographic details of the project?

We have a few distinguished colleagues we would like to hear. Colonel YOUNG. Thank you.

Sir, this proposed project is submitted in final response to a resolution adopted September 1, 1959, by the Committee on Public Works of the House of Representatives.

SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA.

Savannah Harbor comprises the lower 21.3 miles of the Savannah River which forms the boundary between the States of Georgia and South Carolina. A proposed navigation project for Savannah Harbor now under consideration by this committee recommends a general plan of channel deepening and widening so as to provide a channel 40 feet deep and 600 feet wide across the ocean bar; thence 38 feet deep and 500 feet wide in the middle section, and finally 36 feet deep and 400 feet wide at the upper end, for a total distance of 22.6 miles.

This proposed project deals with means of reducing the cost of annual maintenance in Savannah Harbor. Maintenance of Savannah Harbor has long been an item of great expense to the Federal Government and shoaling in the existing channels has been critical to navigation. During the 10-year period from 1954 to 1963, the annual rate of shoaling has averaged about 7 million cubic yards per year and the maintenance costs during this same period have averaged $14 million annually.

The Chief of Engineers recommends construction of a tide gate structure across Back Creek; a sediment basin 40 feet deep and 600 feet wide and about 2 miles long downstream from the tide gate complete with an entrance channel; and a drainage canal 15 feet deep and 300 feet wide across Argyle Island between Little Back River and Middle River. In addition, the Chief of Engineers recommends construction of fresh water control works for the Savannah National Wildlife Refuge consisting of channel, canal, and control structures in order to reduce the detrimental effects of increased salinity concentration on the operation of the national wildlife refuge. The total estimated Federal cost is $6,457,000 subject to certain items of local cooperation, including the provision of all lands, easements, and rightsof-way including suitable areas for spoil disposal. Local interests have indicated their willingness and ability to meet the requirements of local cooperation.

Total estimated annual benefits are $442,500 and the total estimated annual charges are $295,000 resulting in a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.5 to 1.