Because of the actual experience I have had with boat ownership and operation upon the Ohio and Big Sandy Rivers, I feel I am competent to make a constructive statement as to what type of equipment would be best suited for operation upon the Big Sandy; what kind of operation could be maintained; what tonnage could be handled; and what the estimated cost of operation would be if and when the river is improved. Because of the practical knowledge gained with the actual operation of boats upon the Big Sandy, I am sure you will agree that my conclusion will be much nearer accuracy than any conclusions arrived at from an alongside observation survey of the Big Sandy during a low-water period, in its present unimproved state, and from any theoretical deductions made therefrom.

After reviewing the finding and recommendations made by the Huntington district office, and the statements made by various interests on the occasion of the September 10 hearing before your Board, I fully agree with all that has been presented by those supporting the proposal. If the Big Sandy Channel is improved so that barges and boats can be operated regularly all the year round, and having in mind the great commercial value of this proposed improvement to the citizens of the entire Big Sandy Valley, its approval and completion will afford them the full realization of their lifetime ambition. That is why I am appearing as a practical boat owner and operator before your Board today, giving full-hearted support to the recommendation made for the Big Sandy River improvement, a proposition which I have advocated for many years.

The proposed channel, with a minimum depth of 9 feet, width of 150 feet on the straightaways; up to 250 feet width on the bends; with lock chambers 500 feet long and 80 feet wide, is a practical proposition. I know that single locking tows up to the maximum that will pass through the proposed lock chambers can successfully and effectively be handled upon the Big Sandy and its two forks, the Levisa and Tug, if the proposed improvement is made.

With reference to the pools, most of them would be 14 to 27 miles long; this will provide pool lengths just as favorable, in fact, I might say more favorable, for the operation than the pools provided on the Muskigum, Monongahela, upper Ohio, and other improved rivers. This statement is based upon the proposed construction of two locks between the mouth of the river to a point about 10 miles above the forks of Levisa and Tug; upon four locks to the proposed head of navigation for Levisa Fork, a distance of 126 miles; and upon four locks to the proposed head of navigation for Tug Fork, a distance of 92 miles; mileages apply (from the mouth of the river) to proposed head of navigation on each fork. Lock No. 1 would be at the mouth of Big Sandy, so there would be five locks between the mouth of the river and the head of navigation on each of the two forks, Levisa and Tug.

In order to determine a sound basis for boat operation, I have figured that not to exceed an hour will be required to pass through each lock, not to exceed 10 hours will be consumed per round trip for this part of the boat operation; boats can be operated 24 hours per day; on a round-trip basis, boats pushing single locking tows should easily average at least 21⁄2 miles per hour land speed. By the use of this figure for operation, the average round trip daily movement per tow unit would be at least 55 miles per day. I have purposely made this calculation on a very conservative basis; actual operation will probably show that a round trip can be made in less time.

Use of this average daily movement, determination as to the number of round trips per year, should be calculated on the basis that there would be 300 actual running-time days per year. This makes due allowance for lay-up time because of weather interference, maintenance, and repair.

The type of equipment and size of tow unit best suited for this proposed operation would be as follows: 1 towboat capable of delivering 600 push-horsepower; 4 barges, 195 by 35 by 11 feet.

Under the above plan for towboat operation, a tow unit consisting of a towboat and four barges could make the round trip from the mouth of Big Sandy to the head of navigation on Levisa Fork, distance of 126 miles, round trip 252 miles, st most in 5 days; to the head of navigation on Tug Fork, distance 92 miles, round trip 184 miles, at most in 4 days.

However, present undeveloped coal lands bordering the two forks, located on the banks opposite present railroads, will allow production and loading direct from mine to barges from any point on each fork. These undeveloped coal lands begin about 40 miles from the mouth of the river and extend up to the head of navigation. It is logical to figure that, with completion of the proposed channel improvement, coal mines will be opened and placed in operation for barge loading over the entire 86 miles of undeveloped coal territory on Levisa Fork, located on

pools 3, 4, 5, and 6; and the entire additional 52 miles on Tug Fork, located on pools 7, 8, 9, and 10. It is also reasonable to anticipate this development of coal mines because there is no other way at present to get this coal to market.

If and when the channel improvement is completed, and these anticipated coal mines get into production, it is reasonable to say that coal will be loaded and shipped by barge from points all along this total of 138 miles of undeveloped territory bordering the two forks. Granting that this development will follow the channel improvement, it is further logical to figure that the average river mileage haul from the entire coal producing section of the two forks will be a distance of 84 miles, round trip 168 miles, and should be made in not to exceed 3 days. Applying the above mileage and boat round-trip analysis to determine the amount of tonnage that each towboat could move per year, one gets the following

answers:

(1) On the 5-day-round-trip operation basis to and from the head of navigation on Levisa Fork, each towboat will deliver to the mouth of the river 300,000 tons per year.

(2) On the 4-day-round-trip operation basis to and from the head of navigation on Tug Fork, each towboat will deliver to the mouth of the river 375,000 tons per year.

(3) On the average 3-day-round-trip operation basis to and from the entire coal production area, each towboat will deliver to the mouth of the river 500,000 tons per year.

In order to move 15,000,000 tons per year on the operating schedule listed above, the following towboats and barges would be required:

(1) For 5-day-round-trip operation from the head of navigation on Levisa Fork, 70 towboats and 320 barges.

(2) For 4-day-round-trip operation from the head of navigation of Tug Fork, 60 towboats and 280 barges.

(4) For average 3-day-round-trip operation from the entire coal-producing area, 50 towboats and 240 barges.

Under this proposed schedule of towboat operation, it should be perfectly clear to any practical river-operating man that the number of two units that will be required to move a minimum of 15,000,000 tons per year, is not large enough to cause a congestion of traffic on the proposed improved river. The heaviest daily movement would be on the stretch of river in pools 1 and 2, extending from 10 miles up Levisa and Tug Forks to the mouth of the river, a distance of about 40 miles. Pool No. 2 will extend about 10 miles up each fork. In pools 1 and 2 there would be an average movement of one boat every 24 hours. Assuming that above the forks the boats would be about evenly divided between the two forks, there would be one boat passing through each pool every 4.8 hours.

It is further perfectly clear from a sound business operating viewpoint that, with completion of the proposed channel improvement, coal production and its loading into barges will become active over the entire stretch of improved waterway. On this basis, there is but one conclusion that can result-the average mileage movement will prevail. This gives the average 3-day-round-trip basis as the logical one for use to determine what the cost per ton will be for delivery of coal to an Ohio River assembly terminal that can be located at the confluence of the Big Sandy and the Ohio.

In my calculation to determine the delivered cost, I have taken into consideration all cost factors which enter into conservative operational cost figures. I have figured the boat movement at 21⁄2 miles per hour land speed during actual running time for an average round trip, and have allowed 1 hour locking time at each lock. In this way, my delivered-cost figure represents the maximum cost per ton.

Under this sound, logical, conservative basis of calculation, it is my firm conviction that coal can be delivered to the mouth of Big Sandy River, if and when the proposed channel improvement is completed, at a maximum cost in round figures of 24 cents per net ton. If, as I have previously stated, the round trip running time should be less than I have set up, the tonnage delivered per tw unit operated will be increased, the cost of boat operation will be the same, and the river transportation cost decreased, resulting in a lower cost per net ton. It is my further opinion that, if Big Sandy is improved and a permanent channel made available as previously stated, the 15,000,000 tons annual movement can be made. In fact, because of the natural wider channel conditions which exist between the mouth of the river up to Tug and Levisa Forks, a permanent channel that would carry all the tonnage that the two forks would carry without any serious congestion could be made available. With such a channel established for this lower stretch of the Big Sandy River, there is no doubt on my part but that

an annual tonnage movement in excess of 15,000,000 tons can be moved over the Big Sandy, its Levisa and Tug Forks, if the proposed channel improvement is made.

In closing, may I again emphasize that this statement is based upon facts and conclusions arrived at from years of practical experience, and the knowledge gained therefrom. I am convinced that a tonnage movement in excess of the required tonnage to justify the improvement, as set forth in the district engineer's report, can be successfully transported over the proposed improved channel. I am also positive that the per-ton cost for the tonnage moved will not exceed my estimated cost of 24 cents per net ton previously stated herein and, in all probability may be less than 24 cents per net ton. Finally, I wish to again emphasize my previous statement to the effect that the single-locking tow units, consisting of a towboat capable of developing 600 delivered horsepower, and four standard 195- by 35- by 11-foot barges, or their equivalent, can be safely and effectively handled upon the proposed improved channel.

Added to these closing conclusions, I respectfully submit to your honorable Board, from the viewpoint of a practical towboat operator, one who has had the benefit of practical boat operation experience on the Big Sandy River, that, from the viewpoint of towboat operation and added thereto the economic benefits that would naturally follow, volume tonnage that could be moved, and for the commercial welfare of the Big Sandy Valley, plus the national benefit that will be accorded therefrom, the proposed channel improvement should be approved and authorized.

Respectfully submitted.

CAPT. THOMAS VAUGHAN.

RESOLUTIONS OF THE PILOT'S ASSOCIATION OF POINT PLEASANT, W. VA.

Whereas the Pilot's Association of Point Pleasant is deeply interested in the entire inland waterways system of the United States and, more particularly in the industrial welfare and growth of the tri-State area extending from Point Pleasant, W. Va., to Portsmouth, Ohio, on the Ohio River;

And whereas the membership of this association is made up of pilots whose duty it is to handle the large tows passing up and down the Ohio River and the Kanawha River through this district. Its entire membership is river-minded and keenly interested in the welfare of the inland waterways and proposed extensions and improvements thereof;

And whereas the entire Big Sandy Valley lies within the tri-State trade area and its interests are vital to the interests of the membership of this association;

And whereas, from long years of contact and association with the United States Corps of Engineers, the entire membership of this association have come to have great confidence in and respect for the work of this organization;

And whereas the said United States Engineers Corps through its various divisions and subdivisions, over a period of 5 years and at an expense of $400,000, have made an exhaustive study of the Big Sandy waterways project terminating at Catlettsburg, Ky., in the midst of the tri-State area;

And whereas the said United States Engineer Corps, the United States Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army have all approved the immediate construction of the Big Sandy waterway project at an estimated cost of $82,300,000 and have assigned to it an economic ratio of 1:00 to 1:60 which is an unusually high rating: Now, therefore be it

Resolved, That the Pilot's Association of Point Pleasant, concurs with the United States Corps of Engineers and affiliated bodies and approves the Big Sandy waterway project and urges its early construction; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of these resolutions be sent to the United States district engineer of Huntington, W. Va., the Chief of Engineers, United States Army. Washington, D. C., Hon. William M. Whittington, chairman of the Public Works Committee of the House of Representatives, Hon. Henry D. Larcade, Jr., chairman of the Rivers and Harbors Subcommittee of the Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, and Hon. M. G. Burnsides, House of Representatives.

THE PILOT'S ASSOCIATION OF POINT
PLEASANT, W. Va.,

JOHN R. DOUGLASS, President.

Attest:

W. A. JOHNSON, Secretary.

PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS OF THE PROPELLER CLUB, OF THE UNITED STATES, PORT OF HUNTINGTON, W. Va.

Whereas the Propeller Club of the United States, port of Huntington, is deeply interested in the entire inland waterways system of the United States and, in the industrial welfare and growth of the tri-State area extending from Point Pleasant, W. Va., to Portsmouth, Ohio, on the Ohio River.

And whereas its membership is very largely made up of pilots, masters, managers, owners, and builders, and other personnel operating on or along the Ohio River and its tributaries. Its entire membership is river-minded and keenly interested in the welfare of the inland waterways and proposed extensions and improvements thereof.

And whereas the entire Big Sandy Valley lies within the tri-State trade area and its interests are vital to the interests of the membership of this club.

And whereas, from long years of contact and association with the United States Corps of Engineers the entire membership of this club have come to have great confidence in and respect for the work of this organization.

And whereas the said United States Engineer Corps through its various divisions and subdivisions, over a period of 5 years and at an expense of $400,000, have made an exhaustive study of the Big Sandy waterways project terminating at Catlettsburg, Ky., in the midst of the tri-State area.

And whereas the said United States Engineer Corps, the United States Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army have all approved the immediate construction of the Big Sandy waterway project at an estimated cost of $82,300,000 and have assigned to it an economic ratio of 1.00 to 1.60 which is an usually high rating; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Propeller Club of the United States, Port of Huntington, concurs with the United States Corps of Engineers and affiliated bodies and approves the Big Sandy waterway project and urges its early construction; and, be

it further

Resolved, That copies of these resolutions be sent to the United States district engineer of Huntington, W. Va., the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, Washington, D. C., Hon. Homer D. Angell, chairman of the Rivers and Harbors Subcommittee of the Public Works Committee of the House of Representatives, Senator George W. Malone, chairman of the Rivers and Harbors Subcommittee of the Public Works Committee of the Senate, and Gov. Earle C. Clements of Kentucky, Gov. Clarence W. Meadows of West Virginia, and Gov. Thomas J. Herbert of Ohio.

Attest:

A. C. GELWICKS, President.

PAUL S. THOMOS, Secretary.

Senator HOLLAND. Is there anything else? Mr. GOLDEN. I have been listening to the evidence, and it all seems to have been downstream work.

Senator HOLLAND. Maybe the upstream fellows have not had their

say yet.

Mr. GOLDEN. I would like to tell a little of my personal experience upstream.

Senator HOLLAND. All right, sir.

Mr. GOLDEN. I lost quite a bit of money on upstream work because of not having water. I had a 200-horsepower boat. I was going in on a 1,500-acre lease on coal lands on Tug Fork and Levisa just above Louisa. I saw no way out of it to handle it just on an open river. I dropped it. I turned down one job to go with sand and gravel to that trail around Louisa. That would have been 10 miles above and 10 below, two landings. It would have amounted to about 300 to 1,000 tons.

Senator HOLLAND. You were not able to accept those offers of business because of the bad condition of the river?

Mr. GOLDEN. That is it. I turned down one job that went into Paintsville on steel and concrete. It was the State Highway Department up there.

Senator HOLLAND. That is on the Levisa?

Mr. GOLDEN. Yes; at the rate we figured it would have amounted to about $8,000. We had to turn it down.

Senator WITHERS. That is one little incident.

Mr. GOLDEN. Yes.

Senator WITHERS. Is there anything else you wanted to say, Captain?

Mr. GOLDEN. I turned down a boat load of automobiles,

Senator HOLLAND. In other words, your point is that there are numerous contracts you have been offered but which you could not accept because of the unsatisfactory condition of the river?

Mr. GOLDEN. If I could have had the water, I could have had that work, but I did not have the water.

Senator WITHERS. Is there anything else you want to say?

Mr. GOLDEN. There are different jobs, but there is no need of going over all of them.

Senator WITHERS. There are other jobs besides those you have enumerated?

Mr. GOLDEN. Yes; I had to give them up on account of the condition of the water.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you very much.

Mr. GOLDEN. Thank you, sir.

Senator HOLLAND. Who is the next witness?

Senator WITHERS. Thadeus Scott.

STATEMENT OF THADEUS SCOTT, PIKEVILLE, KY.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, my name is Thadeus Scott, from Pikeville, Ky. I am a coal operator and a member of the Big Sandy Coal Association. I filed my statement before the House committee. Senator HOLLAND. Is there anything you want to add to the state

If we

ment you made before the House Committee, Mr. Scott? Mr. SCOTT. Nothing, except about in-going traffic up there. had river transportation, there is an awful lot of business that could be shipped by water.

Senator WITHERS. Do you have any figures on that, Mr. Scott? Mr. SCOTT. Nothing, only business connections. There are an awful lot of automobiles brought up through the valley. They can be brought by water a third cheaper than by rail.

Senator WITHERS. What about your coal?

Mr. SCOTT. The coal shipment, the out-going coal shipment could be made and shipped much cheaper by water, as they have already stated.

Senator WITHERS. Are you speaking of the traffic that would come in? You are just showing that the boats would not return empty; is that it?

Mr. SCOTT. That is what I am trying to bring out. It would not be a one-way traffic. It would be a two-way pay on the river. Senator WITHERS. Merchandise could be shipped in from Louisville and Cincinnati?

Mr. Scort. That is right.

Senator WITHERS. All the points on the river?

Mr. Scorт. Yes, sir. At Pikeville we have an awfully large freight depot, and that could be taken care of by water and save the merchants an awful lot of money.