After a detailed survey made by our field agencies and careful study by the Office of the Chief of Engineers, the Chief of Engineers has recommended that the existing project be modified to provide a channel 9 feet in depth from water of that depth in Delaware Bay. He does not recommend any widening, but does provide for several cutoffs to straighten the channel. He also recommends a turning basin 120 feet wide by 350 feet long at Milford, Del.

Mr. ANGELL. What do you mean by "cutoff"? A new channel? Colonel MILNE. Yes, sir. You can see, Mr. Chairman, that the river itself is extremely winding. In the old project we have already made some cutoffs. Here, for example, is a good indication where one has been made. We will simply dredge our channel directly across these

bends.

Mr. ANGELL. Make a new channel, in other words?

Colonel MILNE. Yes, sir. A new channel. That would ease the problem of navigation considerably at those particular points. Mr. ANGELL. What is the overall length of the improvement? Colonel MILNE. It is 12 miles.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Is the terrain in those cutoffs flat, Colonel? Colonel MILNE. Yes, sir. This whole area is a relatively flat area. There is very little drop from Milford to the Bay.

The recommendations of the Chief of Engineers have been furnished to the State of Delaware and the State has concurred in the recommendations. Likewise, the Bureau of the Budget has concurred in the recommendations.

The original cost estimate based on the project document showed a Federal cost of $414,000 and no non-Federal cost. That cost revised to the fall of 1953 shows a Federal cost of $469,420.

The annual charges based on the revised cost are $34.650.

The benefit-cost ratio, again based on the revised 1953 cost, shows a ratio of 1.83 to 1.

We estimate those benefits would come about in this manner. The existing channel 6 feet deep is very shallow. Navigation has to either wait for the tide or they have to utilize their boats partially loaded. In the former case they have a delay and in the latter case they are not realizing the full value from their investment in the boats.

Increasing this depth to 9 feet should be satisfactory for the bulk of all the cargo vessels that will be bringing produce into the area. Mr. ANGELL. What type of craft is using it?

Colonel MILNE. They have barges and motorboats. Generally the draft will range from 7 to 10 feet.

By providing the deeper channel traffic should increase to something in the neighborhood of 62,000 tons a year. This is a conservative estimate. This traffic would consist of three major products, namely, logs, fertilizer and a rather substantial increase in petroleum products. The transportation savings on those products would vary from something like 75 cents a ton to a dollar and 75 cents a ton.

Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, Colonel.

Our colleague, Congressman Warburton, a member of this committee, desires to be heard on this project, and you may proceed now if you so desire.

STATEMENT OF HON. HERBERT B. WARBURTON, MEMBER OF CONGRESS AT LARGE FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Mr. WARBURTON. Thank you.

First I would like to thank the colonel for his very able presentation in regard to this project, which is, of course, of great interest to me, naturally. I would like to add a few points to what the colonel already said in possible clarification of his presentation.

First I would like to point out that the city of Milford itself is a metropolis area of practically our two lower counties of Sussex and Kent. It is a primary terminal as far as waterborne and trucking cargoes are concerned. I brought up to date some of the figures that appeared in the original report of the Board, dated April 19, 1950, and discovered that the area which the town of Milford and this river from this particular standpoint serves now has a population of 100,000 people. It is just under 100,000, as a matter of fact. The total area it serves is approximately 15,000 square miles. The area still remains predominantly agricultural, but there has been a considerable influx of other industries into the area.

The colonel did indicate specifically in his discussion that he was discussing only the one aspect of the haulage up the river of industrial products, as such. These products are oil, fertilizer, and logs. However, the town of Milford itself is the center of another industry considered to be primarily recreational, but it is an industry as far as the city is concerned. That is, it is one of the centers of recreational fishing in the State of Delaware.

I would invite the attention of my colleagues to the last report with respect to the particular aspect which indicates on page 6 that in the year 1947, 2,635 round trips by recreational fishing craft were made. I have had the opportunity of checking yesterday with the mayor of the town of Milford, and he indicates that that number of trips has increased substantially, as has the recreational fishing population.

In 1948 the number of passengers carried for that purpose was 69,800 down this river, and it has now gotten to be above 80,000 to 85,000, and makes a substantial contribution to the economic life of that whole particular area.

An aspect also that I believe might be of interest is this: The town of Milford maintains a relatively substantial boatbuilding and boatrepair industry also, securing its primary yield from the commercial fisheries, the menhaden fisheries, which are based in the town of Lewis, some considerable distance down the coast. The boats built there are repaired at Milford for this industry and they are of a fairly substantial size, running 165 to 175 feet in length. I think it would be obvious that the authorization of and completion of this project is going to be of substantial benefit as far as that other aspect of this area's industry is concerned.

The question of the undertakings on the part of the local people still remains firm, according to the information I received yesterday. That is, this area along the river in the area indicated by the colonel is basically flat and level salt marsh, and therefore all of the necessary easements, rights-of-way, and spoilage areas are available and securable. It is the desire of the people of the area to give such further assurance with regard to damages as the Corps of Engineers would require.

I think it is a project that obviously to me at least deserves considerable attention, and I would welcome the close attention of the committee to it.

Senator Williams has asked, because of his inability to be here this morning, as to whether he might be able to secure unanimous consent of the committee to furnish for the record a statement which he has prepared for your consideration.

Mr. ANGELL. Without objection, that statement will be received and inserted in the record.

Mr. WARBURTON. Thank you, sir.

(The statement of Senator John J. Williams is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN J. WILLIAMS

MISPILLION RIVER, DEL.

Mr. Chairman, this project was first adopted on March 2, 1919, and modified on August 26, 1937, providing for a channel 6 feet deep at mean low water, 80 feet wide in Delaware Bay to the mouth, thence 60 feet wide to Milford, Del., and for 2 parallel stone filled pile and timber jetties at the mouth. The river length is about 12 miles, and was completed according to these specification in 1939. Due to the great increased commerce upon this stream, business interests of Kent and Sussex Counties, Del., brought to my attention the necessity of seeking authorization by the Congress to modify the project to provide a channel 9 feet deep and 80 feet wide from water of 9 feet depth in Delaware Bay to the mouth, thence 9 feet deep and 60 feet wide to the head of navigation at Milford. I introduced legislation in the United States Senate during the 81st Congress to authorize such modifications. The Army district engineer, the division engineer and finally the Board of Army Engineers have approved legislation providing for such modification of the existing project.

I am satisfied that the facts which will be presented at this hearing will demonstrate the urgency and widespread need for this improvement in order to properly serve Kent and Sussex Counties, Del., advantageously with fertilizer, petroleum, and other essential commodities.

There is also a very important shipbuilding industry located at Milford. This industry is now building yachts in 40- and 47-foot lengths, and repairs fishing boats up to 60 feet in length which should draw from 6 to 7 feet. At the nearby port of Lewes is situated one of the largest Menhaden fishing industries in the United States, and a 9-foot channel would permit this shipbuilding industry to repair the fishing steamers which run 120 to 150 feet in length. This would double the present volume of business of this single industry and would save some 12 hours' time on each vessel handled. The proposed 9-foot channel is, therefore, vitally needed to improve the commerce on the river and as a harbor in time of storm for the fishing fleet of the menhaden industries located at Lewes.

There are several petroleum companies which utilize this river. For example, the Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. has a present volume of business annually at Milford at 100,000 barrels. The capacity of the barge now in use for transporting this volume is 3,571 barrels. Should the channel be increased to 9 feet the barge could be increased to 7,200 barrels, thus saving the full day's time. It is estimated that the increase in the petroleum business alone in the next 2 or 3 years will be some 22 percent. There are more than 3,000 homes which are supplied with fuel oil through the utilization of this river.

I, therefore, strongly urge this committee to authorize the project in the omnibus rivers and harbors bill which you are now considering.

Mr. ANGELL. Are there any questions from Colonel Milne or our colleague, Congressman Warburton, on this subject?

Mr. BECKER. The only question I would like to ask is I see at the top of the map a Milford proposed turning basin. Is that included in the $460,000?

Colonel MILNE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BECKER. That is all I wanted to ask.

Mr. MACK. Since Mr. Warburton mentioned menhaden, I would like to say that it is the largest fish industry, in volume, in the United States. There is no fishing industry that compares with it in volume. The pilchards come second, and then come tuna and salmon. Of course, tuna and salmon are larger from the standpoint of monetary value, but not in volume.

Mr. WARBURTON. I appreciate that.

Mr. MACK. Do they build boats there for the menhaden industry? Mr. WARBURTON. We have one of the largest plants of that nature in the world. It is a substantial industry in that part of the State. Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. If the gentleman would yield I would like to say in this next project he will hear some more about menhaden. Mr. ANGELL. Are there any questions?

(No response.)

Mr. ANGELL. Are there any additional witnesses who desire to be heard on this project?

(No response.)

Mr. ANGELL. If not, we will proceed to the next project.

SHOAL HARBOR AND COMPTON CREEK, N. J.

Mr. ANGELL. The next project is Shoal Harbor a Compton Creek in New Jersey.

Colonel Milne, you may proceed with this project.

Colonel MILNE. The report on Shoal Harbor and Compton Creek is contained in House Document No. 80 of the 82d Congress, 1st session, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of July 24, 1946.

Shoal Harbor is a small indentation in the coast of New Jersey as Sandy Hook Bay. Compton Creek is a tidal creek running into Shoal Harbor. This creek extends for about 11⁄2 mile and is tidal over its entire length.

The area tapped by Compton Creek is of moderate population. It is particularly important as a fishing center. The existing Federal project for the Shoal Harbor and Compton Creek provides for a channel 8 feet from water of that depth in Sandy Hook, and 150 feet in width, and then narrowing down to a channel 75 feet wide, still 8 feet deep as it gets into the creek proper. It extends upstream 0.6 mile from the jetties. Incidentially, the stone jetty was built by local interests at a much earlier time.

In the year 1951 over 85,000 tons of commerce utilized this waterway. The commerce was confined almost entirely to menhaden fish. Over 2,000 vessel trips were used to bring that very large quantity of fish into this area, where it is processed and distributed as a commercial product.

Local interests have complained for some time that the existing project is inadequate to meet the needs of the vessels presently utilizing this waterway. They have indicated a channel 8 feet deep is not suflicient, and have recommended a channel 14 feet in depth. They have also recommended an extension of the jetty and suggested that additional consideration be given to widening the channel.

After considering the requests of local interests and going thoroughly into the problems involved, the Chief of Engineers feels that certain improvements are required to meet the needs of present and prospective

commerce. He does not feel that a channel 14 feet in depth is required. He recommends that a channel 12 feet in depth with the same width as the existing channel be provided.

The extension of the jetty would do very little to relieve the situation at the entrance and extension is accordingly not recommended.

The recommendations have been furnished to the State of New Jersey and the State has indicated approval of those recommendations. Likewise, the recommendations have been furnished to the Bureau of the Budget and have been concurred in by that agency. Based on the document as published the Federal costs are $105,000 and the non-Federal costs are $105,000, for a total cost of $210,000. Those costs revised to 1953 data show a Federal cost of $171,000 and a non-Federal cost of $105,000, for a grand total of $276,000. The annual charges based on the revised costs are $26,800. The benefit-cost ratio, again based on the revised charges, is 1.56 to 1. I would like to cover two things in a little more detail: (1) Benefits, and (2) the matter of local cooperation.

Mr. ANGELL. Before you go into that, Colonel, why does the Federal cost increase and not the non-Federal cost under the revised schedule? Colonel MILNE. That is one of the points I would like to explain. As I have said, the present channel is 8 feet in depth, and the type of craft utilizing it are drawing anywhere from 8 to 12 feet of water. The result being, of course, that they have to wait for periods of high tide to get in and out of that channel.

In addition to the loss of time that they actually suffer through this delay they have a further loss as a result of damage to their craft because of the relatively shallow water in Compton Creek.

We have analyzed the problem and have felt that the provision of this deeper 12-foot channel would permit the bulk of the vessels to utilize the waterway without any regard to tidal conditions. In addition it would materially decrease the damage to vessels that is presently being suffered by the fishing fleet. A combination of less damage and a greater catch of fish would result in material savings to the local community. Those two items are the principal sources of the benefits that we feel would accrue as a result of the deepening of the channel from 8 to 12 feet.

Now I would like to discuss for a moment local cooperation. In accordance with the project document we have recommended that local interests contribute in cash 50 percent of the first cost of work, but not to exceed $105,000; that they furnish lands, easements, rightsof-way, and spoil-disposal area; that they hold and save the Federal Government free from damages; and that they deepen to 14 feet the berths in terminals on improved channels and construct a public wharf required under the existing project.

The reason for the high participation by the local interests is that our analysis shows that a great portion of the benefits that are attributable to this improvement are local in nature. Accordingly we felt that a participation of one-half of the cost of the project was justified, and so recommended.

In answering your question, Mr. Chairman, as to why the Federal costs went up and the non-Federal costs remained the same, the answer is that the language in the project document called for a cash contribu