FLOOD CONTROL-RIVERS AND HARBORS

FRIDAY, JULY 22, 1949

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE FOR FLOOD CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT OF RIVERS AND HARBORS OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, in room 412, Senate Office Building, Senator Spessard L. Holland presiding. Present: Senators Holland and Sparkman.

Also present: Col. W. S. Moore and Lt. Col. H. Gee, Office Chief of Engineers, Department of Army.

HUDSON RIVER, FLA.

Senator HOLLAND. Let the subcommittee come to order. We will open the hearings by taking up the project for the Hudson River, Fla., which has come in from the Corps of Engineers and the Budget Bureau since the hearings in the House were completed, as I understand.

We have with us Senator Pepper and Congressman Peterson, of Florida, and we will be glad to hear from Senator Pepper.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLAUDE PEPPER, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Senator PEPPER. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for this opportunity to present my views on the project to improve Hudson River, Fla.

This river has its source at the town of Hudson and enters into the Gulf of Mexico some 60 miles north of the entrance to Tampa Harbor. Hudson, Fla., is the main town in the area of the river. The major activities in the area are commercial fishing and sponge gathering in the coastal waters. The local citizens of Hudson have built three wholesale fish houses, about 125 feet of finger piers, and a small marine

Thirty-three commercial motor vessels and about thirty-five skiffs use the town of Hudson as a base. The Corps of Engineers recommends that the Federal Government provide a channel 6 feet deep and 75 feet wide from that depth in the Gulf of Mexico to the head of the Hudson River, subject to certain conditions of local cooperation. The estimated Federal cost of this improvement is $258,700. The Corps of Engineers has found that this project is economically justified. Hon. Fuller Warren, Governor of the State of Florida, has indicated that the report on the Hudson River of the Chief of the Corps of Engineers has the unqualified approval of the State and he has recommended to the Corps of Engineers early initiation of the project in the public interest.

I also understand that the Director of the Bureau of the Budget has advised the Secretary of Army that there is no objection to the favorable report on the project submitted to Congress by the Corps of Engineers.

Mr. Chairman, there is a pressing need for the improvement of Hudson River, Fla., to enable small boat navigation in the area. The improvement will result in increased production and improved collection of sponge and fish; help to develop a sport fishing industry. providing refuge harbors for small craft and eliminating the principal cause of damages to boats in the area. The local people in and around Hudson are offering to furnish the lands and rights-of-way and to provide and maintain the necessary public mooring facilities and utilities, open to all on equal terms.

I urge your committee to approve this project.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you, Senator. Now we will hear from Mr. Peterson.

STATEMENT OF HON. J. HARDIN PETERSON, REPRESENTATIVE IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, this has the favorable report from the Corps of Engineers and from the Budget, a report made after rather extensive investigation and hearings in the field, and examination of the project itself with reference to the economics.

The project is situated on the west coast of Florida north of Tampa. It is an area which serves as a harbor of refuge, and also there is a sizable fishing industry.

The present channel is rather tortuous and the Army engineers recommend a channel 6 feet deep and 75 feet wide from the Gulf of Mexico to the head of Hudson River via a cut-off across a land point formed by a sharp bend in the river.

The estimated cost is $258,700, with an annual maintenance of $3,300. The annual benefits are estimated at $14.022, of which $2.475 is from reduction of maintenance of boats, $2,000 is from prevention of fish spoilage, $1,787 is from elimination of lost fishing time, and $7,760 is the net value of the increased fish catch which is considered a primary general benefit.

Those figures are conservative figures based on the study, and it is felt that the actual benefits will increase there if they get away from this tortuous, dangerous channel.

In addition to that there is the safety involved. I happened to go over there right after one of the heavy winds and the boats had been broken on the flats there, and the boats had gotten off the channel. And coming in it is difficut even for the old-timers who fish there and know almost intuitively the channel to get in the channel at that time.

In addition to that, it is a very tortuous channel, and many of the fishing boats have to come in either when the tide is high, before it gets low, or wait until the next tide, which shorters their fishing period. I have a rough kodak shot made of one of the boats that went on the shoals there.

The report of the Army engineers is comprehensive. Conferences have been held with the local groups and they have assured us of their cooperation, and the district engineer also informed me he was satis

fied with the cooperation of the local groups-that it would be furnished.

I sincerely hope it may be included in the pending bill. It is one of those in which the report was going through the mill and had been sent to the governor for his approval, and it came back and went to the budget and did not quite hit the deadline before the House reported its bill.

It is important to that community and to that west coast of Florida. Thank you very much.

Senator HOLLAND. Do you wish to leave the picture?

Mr. PETERSON. Yes.

Senator HOLLAND. It will be filed, but not reproduced in the record. Mr. PETERSON. Thank you.

Senator HOLLAND. We will now hear from the Army engineers on this project. Colonel Moore.

Colonel MOORE. Mr. Chairman, the report on Hudson River, Fla., as published in House Document No. 287, Eighty-first Congress, was authorized by an item in the River and Harbor Act approved March 2, 1945.

Hudson River is a short, tortuous stream that has its source in a group of fresh water springs at the village of Hudson, Fla., and flows westerly to empty into the Gulf of Mexico at a point 60 miles north of the entrance to Tampa Harbor. Controlling depths are 1 foot in Hudson River and 2 feet at the mouth. The 6-foot contour in the Gulf is 3 miles off-shore. The mean range of tide is 2.3 feet.

Hudson, with a population of 275, is the principal town in the undeveloped tributary area which has a total permanent population of 500. The area is characterized by marshlands rising gradually from the coast into cut-over timberlands. It is underlain by extensive limestone deposits of good quality, and it contains small tracts of commercial timber. The principal activities are commercial fishing and sponge gathering in coastal waters.

No improvement of Hudson River has been authorized by Congress. It is estimated that the average annual catch of fish off Hudson River totals 120 tons.

Thirty-three motor vessels, of which 15 are commercial fishing boats and 18 are hooker-type sponge boats, base at Hudson. Drafts of vessels range from 1.5 to 5 feet. About 35 skiffs are used commercially at the village.

Local interests have constructed three wholesale fish houses and about 125 feet of finger piers over which fish and sponges are handled in commercial quantities; also one small marine way capable of handling craft up to 22 feet in length.

Local interests request provision of a navigation channel 6 feet deep and not less than 30 feet wide to extend from the springs at the head of Hudson River directly west across the marsh to and into the Gulf of Mexico.

They claim that the improvement would result in increased production and improved quality of fish and sponges, develop a sport fishing industry, provide a harbor of refuge for small craft, eliminate the principal causes of present boat damages, and improve general business of the tributary area.

The district engineer recommends that the United States provide a channel 6 feet deep and 75 feet wide from the Gulf of Mexico to the

head of Hudson River via a cut-off across a land point formed by a sharp bend in the river. The total length of the channel is about 3.1 miles. The division engineer concurs.

The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors concurs in the conclusions of the reporting officers that the proposed improvement is justified by the general public benefits.

Accordingly, the Board recommends that the United States provide a channel generally in accordance with the plan of the district engineer and with such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be advisable.

In accordance with existing law, copy of the Chief of Engineers' proposed report was furnished the Governor of Florida for comment. He stated:

Your report has the unqualified approval of the State of Florida, and early initiation of the proposed work is recommended as necessary in the public interest.

In accordance with section 4 of Executive Order No. 9384, the report was submitted to the Bureau of the Budget for information as to the relationship of the proposed report to the program of the President. The Bureau of the Budget advised that there would be no objection to the submission of the report to Congress.

The Chief of Engineers, after due consideration of these reports, concurs generally in the views and recommendations of the Board. He recommends that the United States provide a channel 6 feet deep and 75 feet wide from that depth in the Gulf of Mexico to the head of Hudson River, Fla., generally in accordance with the plan of the district engineer and with such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be advisable.

The project is recommended subject to the provision that local interests give assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that they will: (a) Provide without cost to the United States all land easements, rights-of-way, and spoil-disposal areas necessary for the initial construction and subsequent maintenance, when and as required; (b) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; and (c) provide and maintain at local expense, in accordance with plans approved by the Chief of Engineers, adequate public mooring facilities and utilities, including a landing with suitable supply facilities, open to all on equal terms.

The cost to United States for construction, as shown in the report, is estimated at $258,700.

The annual carrying charge, including annual maintenance costs of $3,300 for the project, is estimated at $13,482.

The district engineer estimates the annual benefits at $14,022, of which $2.475 is from reduction of maintenance of boats, $2,000 is from prevention of fish spoilage, $1,787 is from elimination of lost fishing time, $5,360 is net profit to fishermen from operation of additional boats, and $2,400 is increased net profit to wholesalers from augmented catches.

The benefit-cost ratio is estimated by the district engineer as 1.04. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors notes that the dia trict engineer's measurement of benefits in part is based on increased profits and wages to local interests. It believes that such benefits are secondary but that the primary general benefit which is the net value of the increased fish catch, would at least equal the items of profits

and wages. It therefore concludes that the improvement is economically justified and concurs in the recommendations of the reporting officers.

The water area in the Gulf of Mexico off the mouth of Hudson River contains important fish and sponge beds. The improvement recommended will enable the local inhabitants, who are to a great extent dependent on fishing and sponge gathering for a livelihood, to increase their earnings. The improvement will also provide a harbor of refuge.

PASQUOTANK RIVER, N. C.

OREGON INLET, N. C.

Senator HOLLAND. The next project shown here on the list is Pasquotank River, N. C., and Oregon Inlet, N. C.

Senator Hoey of North Carolina.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLYDE R. HOEY, A SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Senator HOEY. Mr. Chairman, Senator Graham and Congressman Bonner from this district, the First District of North Carolina, are present. We are all interested in this, and instead of going into detail about it, I will ask Congressman Bonner to just make a brief statement about it.

We heartily endorse it. We rely upon the report of the Army engineers.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you.

We will be glad to have your statement, Congressman.

STATEMENT OF HON. HERBERT COVINGTON BONNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. BONNER. Senator, I imagine it is customary for the engineers to substantiate their report of the project.

This proposed improvment for flood control is in the vicinity of Dismal Swamp Canal and will protect very rich farm lands from the verflow of Lake Drummond and Dismal Swamp, and will protect Elizabeth City. It is for the purpose of building a dike and diverting the water into the Pasquotank River.

Now when we have excess rainfall, the water instead of coming down its natural course through Pasquotank River floods quite an area of farm land and affects the city of Elizabeth City with a flood condition. That is about the project.

Senator HOEY. I heartily endorse it, Mr. Chairman. And we rely upon the engineers' report.

Senator HOLLAND. Has it cleared the budget?

Mr. BONNER. I might say this: The local people have gone to their full extent in a financial way in correcting the trouble and it has gotten beyond their scope.

Senator HOLLAND. Have the Budget Bureau cleared it?

Mr. BONNER. I cannot answer that question.

Senator HOLLAND. Do you know, Senator Hoey?