Mr. ANGELL. It is true, is it not, that there is a large number of projects which have been authorized in the past that now could be discarded? They are no longer needed and there is no need for the improvements now or in the future. Also, changes in conditions and other improvements that have been made make it unnecessary to proceed with them and they could be eliminated from the list.

General STURGIS. Yes, sir. There are two steps in the program. One, we must keep it sensitive to anything new that develops; and, two, we must cull out those projects which are definitely in the discard and for which the Congress sees no need.

Mr. ANGELL. It is true, is it not, General, that changes in economic conditions and in the national defense needs and the type of water traffic needed on rivers and harbors makes necessary from time to time additional work on existing projects that we have completed in the past, and also makes necessary new projects in order to keep abreast of changing conditions and advances in our economic life?

General STURGIS. Yes, sir. The projects should be regarded as they would be in business, where obsolescent machinery is eliminated and modern machinery introduced, so that the plant can be kept modern and current and able to compete with other concerns.

The same thing, I think, holds true exactly with the Government's navigation program.

Mr. ANGELL. There has been some criticism too of the custom of combining all of these projects in a so-called omnibus bill. Some criticize that method as though it were a pork-barrel proposition, and a "You scratch my back and I will scratch yours" proposition.

What is your answer, General, to the necessity and the real need for placing these projects in an omnibus bill, as we have been accustomed to doing in the past and are planning to do at the present time?

General STURGIS. Consideration of these projects in an omnibus bill, sir, permits the Congress to take up at one time the entire program. Each project can then be viewed on its relative merits. In other words, it would be more difficult, it would seem to me, to judge the relative merits of the projects if they were considered piecemeal over several years rather than if they were all studied by the Congress at one time.

Mr. ANGELL. Under the procedures by which they are handled on the floor in an omnibus bill, any project that a majority of the members feel should not be authorized at this time can be eliminated, can it not?

General STURGIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANGELL. Does it not also result in a very considerable savings of time of the committee and the Congress itself in the consideration of this large number of projects as one bill?

General STURGIS. Yes, it does, sir. That is what I had very much in mind. The deliberations of Congress can be concentrated for a definite period of time on these projects and there will be no need to refresh your memory on testimony several years old. It seems to me much more efficient to do it that way.

Mr. ANGELL. As I understand it from your statement and from previous knowledge, it is the plan for the Corps of Engineers to submit to the committee a list of the projects which in their judgment

are no longer needed and which could well be eliminated from the schedule of authorized projects?

General CHORPENING. Yes, sir. These categories are three: First, the active projects that we think obviously merit consideration because they are highly justified and because there is no local opposition. Second, those projects that we are doubtful about. They have potentialities, but we want to consider them further. We want to gather additional information that may involve changed conditions. that did not exist at the time of original survey.

Third, those projects where the justification has decreased, or where the costs have risen out of proportion to the benefits. These are the projects which more or less by inspection, can easily be shown to the Congress to be not required. These constitute the deadwood in the program which we feel should be removed in order to progress.

Mr. ANGELL. The third category is the list of projects that could very well be deauthorized?

General STURGIS. Yes, sir. We would ask the Congress to consider that.

Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, General.

Mr. MACK. General Sturgis, I understand there are a great number of projects that have not been submitted to the Congress. Some of those projects are before the review board, and some of them are in the Bureau of the Budget. Additional projects, of course, will be presented to this committee probably prior to the enactment or passage of any omnibus river and harbor bill. Is that so? General STURGIS. Yes, sir.

I might take a minute here [to] insert in the record, if you wish, the number of projects which we are not presenting now, and which you might say are in the pipeline. They are under study and being considered by the River and Harbor Board, by my office, or by the Bureau of the Budget, and have not come over to Congress as yet. Mr. MACK. I think that would be helpful.

Mr. ANGELL. General, without objection, we will ask you to supply for the record that information.

Mr. MACK. Are you listing the projects or just giving us the totals? General STURGIS. Just giving the total number, sir.

Mr. ANGELL. About how many are there?

General STURGIS. I have those figures on a card here which I can look up.

Mr. ANGELL. We will not take the time to go into it, General. In the extension of your remarks you may include such information, if you desire, on that subject.

General STURGIS. I have them now as follows, sir. Do you want them inserted here?

Mr. MACK. That is correct.

General STURGIS. These are as of December 1953.

Mr. ANGELL. That includes both rivers and harbors and flood control?

General STURGIS. It includes all projects. Yes, sir. Flood control, multipurpose, navigation, and beach erosion.

Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, General.

If there is nothing further, we will proceed with the first project. That completes your statement, does it, General?

General STURGIS. Yes, sir. If there are no further questions.

Mr. ANGELL. The first project we will take up is the Lubec Channel in Maine.

General STURGIS. Mr. Chairman, if you and the committee do not object, I have an appointment which I would like to keep, if I may,

sir.

Mr. ANGELL. You may be excused.

General STURGIS. This hearing takes precedence, but if I may be excused I would appreciate it.

Mr. ANGELL. That is quite all right. You may be excused, General.

LUBEC CHANNEL, MAINE

Mr. ANGELL. Now, it is customary procedure in considering these projects first to hear from the Army engineers on the project, and then to hear the testimony from the Representatives in Congress in the particular district in which the project is located, and then any witnesses who desire to be heard. If there is no objection, we will proceed in that order.

Mr. SPECKER. I am Richard H. Specker of the National Water Carriers Association.

Mr. Chairman, will it be in order for me to request the permission of the committee here and now to insert a statement into the record either tomorrow or the next day?

Mr. ANGELL. Without objection, that may be done, if you will provide the clerk with the statement, it will be included in the record. Is it on this particular project?

Mr. SPECKER. Scituate Harbor.

Mr. ANGELL. It will be included in the record of that project.

Mr. SPECKER. Thank you, sir.

Mr. ANGELL. Colonel Milne, will you proceed?

STATEMENT OF COL. W. D. MILNE, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY-Resumed

Colonel MILNE. Mr. Chairman, Lubec Channel is covered in Senate Document No. 243 of the 81st Congress, 2d session. That study was authorized by a resolution of the Senate Committee on Commerce dated July 16, 1945.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to go to the map, if it is satisfactory to do so.

Mr. ANGELL. You may, Colonel Milne.

Colonel MILNE. Lubec Channel is located on the International Boundary waters in the northern part of Maine. The village of Lubec is approximately 3,000 in population. It serves as a trading area for the surrounding area of some 14 or 15 miles.

The principal products handled on the waterway are fish and some petroleum and coal.

The existing Federal project for Lubec consists of a 12-foot channel, some 500 feet wide, running along the International Boundary line and extending beyond Lubec toward Eastport, and a jetty at Gun Rock.

This area has an extremely high tidal range. The tides will range from 18 feet to a maximum of some 24 feet. As a result of that tide there is an unusually high current both in a north and south direction along the Lubec Channel. Over the years it has caused considerable difficulty to the ships using Lubec as a port of trade.

The original project as constructed by the Corps of Engineers contemplates that the jetty would tend to relieve that adverse current. Local interests also sunk several ships a number of years ago along Short Point. The combination of those old ships plus Gun Rock jetty did help to relieve the situation, but certainly did not correct it. Over the years the ships that were sunk by local interests have pretty much deteriorated and rusted away. Navigation is having considerable difficulty in the utilization of the port, particularly in docking. Local interests have requested that the Federal Government extend the so-called Gun Rock jetty by a rock jetty in this direction, and the construction of a new jetty at Short Point.

The division engineer made a thorough study of the economics of this particular project. The Chief of Engineers in reviewing the project has come to the conclusion that it is justifiable, and he recommends that an extension of the Gun Rock jetty some 90 feet in an easterly direction and a new jetty at Short Point be authorized by the Congress.

He also recommends certain elements of local cooperation. These are specifically that the local interests provide at their expense a suitable public landing open to all on equal terms, in addition to furnishing lands, easements, and rights-of-way, and holding and saving the Federal Government free from damages.

The Governor of the State of Maine has concurred in the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, and the Bureau of the Budget has indicated its concurrence.

The cost of this project at the time the document was prepared was $50,700 Federal costs and $500 non-Federal costs, a total of $51,200. We estimate that today the Federal cost would be $74,000 and the nonFederal cost would be $1,000, a total of $75,000.

The annual charges based on the cost today would be $3,700 Federal and $35 non-Federal, or a total annual charge of $3,735.

The benefits, as estimated in the original document were $7,500 annually, and those benefits were arrived at by computing the damages to ships in landing at Lubec Harbor. Out of 1,500 landings a year over 10 percent of the ships were damaged, averaging about $70 for each landing. The benefits today are estimated at $10,300, and the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 2.8 to 1.

Mr. Chairman, are there any questions?
Mr. ANGELL. Any questions on my left?

Mr. MACK. Is this to deepen the channel, or widen it, or to provide protection for the berthing of ships?

Colonel MILNE. The 12-foot channel which already exists will not be deepened or widened. The only thing that will be done is an extension of the Gun Rock jetty and the construction of a Short Point jetty, which will tend to alleviate the strong currents running north and south due to the extremely high range of tides.

Mr. MACK. You spoke of a number of ships being damaged. What was the cause of the damage?

Colonel MILNE. The cause of the damage was the excessive current. When they came in for landing, the current would throw them into the dock or shore.

Mr. MACK. What did you say the cost-benefit ratio was, Colonel?
Colonel MILNE. 2.8 to 1.

Mr. ANGELL. Colonel, that is a rather high ratio, is it not?
Colonel MILNE. Yes, sir. A very good one.

Mr. MACK. What is the principal type of fish landed?

Colonel MILNE. Sardines, herring, and lobster, sir.

Mr. ANGELL. Is the channel used mainly for fishing craft?

Colonel MILNE. Primarily for petroleum and coal products, with fishing a secondary use.

Mr. MACK. I thought this port was handling commerce totaling about 48,000 tons a year. I saw that in the report.

Colonel MILNE. In 1948, sir.

Mr. ANGELL. Are there any further questions on my left?

(No response.)

Mr. ANGELL. On my right?

(No response.)

Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, Colonel Milne.

Our colleague, Mr. McIntire, is present, and we will be very glad to hear from you at this time, sir.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFFORD G. McINTIRE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE

Mr. McINTIRE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I certainly want to express my appreciation for the opportunity to supplement the testimony presented to you in relation to the Lubec Channel project. Also, I want to take this opportunity to express the appreciation of the citizens of this portion of my district for your taking the time to visit this area in your tour of the east coast seaport projects during the congressional recess.