in 1939-and it was approved in 1945, and the engineers made this restudy in 1945, and made their report in 1946 which brought out that this dam would cost $42 million, as a multiple-purpose dam.

Now, the Lower Neches Valley Authority was approached to put up $5 million. The original authorization provided that, before the work was started on this project, there be some local interests, or that the local interests of the State of Texas should agree to put up $5 million toward the cost of the project.

The cost of the project was estimated under the 1939 study at $28 million.

Now, that is about 18 percent of the total cost of the project.

In the 1945 study, they brought that cost up to $42 million on the McGee Bend Dam, and at that time, with the full knowledge of the cost of it, the Secretary of the Army approved our assurance to put $5 million into this project; and in 1946 and in 1947, appeared before the Appropriation Committee of the Congress; with all of this information fully before it, the Congress authorized the beginning of construction of this project. There are two phases of it, the McGee Bend Dam and dam B, a single operating unit.

In 1948, they made additional commitments, or appropriations, with all of these factors in front of them.

In 1919, they approved an appropriation for $1.8 million for the completion of dam B. And after that money was appropriated to complete dam B-I beg your pardon, in 1948, they appropriated $1.8 million to complete dam B, and we were to put in $2 million with the $1.8 million, which was to finish up the contract on dam B, and we put in that $2 million.

The next year, 1949, they appropriated $200,000 for beginning of planning of the McGee Bend Dam.

Now, at that time, we finished paying up the $2 million. We paid in two installments; we paid $1,500,000 in 1948 and $500,000 in 1949. And we did that with the full knowledge that the cost of the McGee Bend Dam-that the Congress knew what the McGee Bend Dam was going to cost, and they appropriated money for the McGee Bend Dam to start in 1949; and in 1950, they appropriated $200,000, and in 1951, with the Korean situation such as it was, there were no new starts ordered and the directive of the administration was that there be no new starts, and they picked out, the Corps of Engineers, picked out 9 projects and appeared before the Appropriations Committee and said that these 9 projects they considered most important toward national economy and the defense to get started as early as possible, and they were asking for $75,000 to complete this advance planning on the McGee Bend Dam.

Now, we have our $2 million in the project up to that time, and the planning has been completed on this project.

And in 1953, we are informed that on account of these costs, and the directive of the Bureau of the Budget, that in the face of this information in this letter, commitment of $800,000, that they did not believe that there was a market for that power that would cover the cost of installing it.

I think that part of it has been pretty well resolved.

And then they came to us about the fact that we were just going to put $3 million into this $42 million project.

So, as stated in paragraph 11 of the restudy report before this committee, that has been filed by the engineers, the Corps of Engineers reviewed the fact that the original authorization required the local interests to produce 18 percent of the cost of the whole project. We reviewed our financial ability. We state that we have made our assurance which has been accepted by the Secretary of the Army, and has been before the Appropriations Committee, which is tantamount to actual approval by their having made appropriations throughout these years.

We say we know from that, that it creates some equities, some rights, in the local people who have some limit to their credit ability, and who have gone to the limit of their credit, to put up this money to see the overall project completed.

The extent of our financial ability will be to put $3 million into the construction of the McGee Bend Dam and then to put $200,000 a year additional, and our finances will permit that, and our revenues, solely from the sale and distribution of raw water. We have to go away up the river, above the salt water incursion, and we have 345 miles of canal constructed for the distribution of water in that area.

Now that is more-that will be $15 million that we will have in this project. We were originally required only to put up $5 million and we are willing to make a firm agreement that we will put up that much money for this project.

And our Congressman is going to suggest a modification of the original authorization to provide that, before any appropriation is made for the beginning of the construction of the McGee Bend Dam, that we must change our authorization, our original assurance, or commitment, not to $5 million but that we will put in this additional $3 million and $200,000 a year for 50 years.

Mr. ANGELL. We thank you for your statement. The time has expired.

Mr. EASTERLING. Thank you very much.

Mr. ANGELL. Is there anything further, Mr. Brooks?

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, there is one correction that should be made for the record.

Mr. BEASLEY. Mr. Kinney (?) kindly called my attention to the fact that I may have left the wrong impression in response to a question from one of you gentlemen of the committee this morning, when I said something about 12 mills being the cost of power.

I was referring to the prime energy. Now the report which the Army engineers have submitted to the committee will indicate the average of 129 million kilowatts per year of energy on the McGee Bend Dam, which results in an average cost for an average year, for the average flow, of 6 mills per kilowatt-hour. You see, there is quite a little difference between the

Mr. ANGELL (interposing). That includes both the primary and secondary?

Mr. BEASLEY. The primary and secondary, yes.

Mr. ANGELL. We thank you.

Mr. BROOKS. I would like to ask, in view of the original contract that the people in this have had with the Government, and I hope that you can see your way clear to maintain the faith that the people have had in the Federal Government to conclude this thing as originally

started. They have gone to the absolute limit of their capacity in contributing local funds.

Mr. ANGELL. We thank you, Mr. Brooks, for your very fine pres

entation.

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The statement from Hon. T. A. Thompson is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF T. A. THOMPSON, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM LOUISIANA, IN THE SUPPORT OF MCGEE BEND PROJECT ON THE ANGELINA RIVER, TEX.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have this opportunity to speak briefly in support of the McGee Bend project on the Angelina River, Tex. Although the proposed improvement is physically located some miles over the line in our neighbor State, the benefits will accrue to a considerable area.

I am informed that this project which was authorized in the 1945 Rivers and Harbors Act is before your committee for review of scope, costs, and local participation in the light of present day conditions. I am sure that the Corps of Engineers and the local interests have given you the pertinent facts and details. This project is a unit of a comprehensive plan to provide important flood control storage and conserve water for navigation improvement, water supply, and irrigation. It will also include hydroelectric generating facilities for the ultimate benefit of not only western Texas, but also a portion of the State of Louisiana.

This appears, Mr. Chairman, to be another example, so typical of many streams tributary to the gulf where water as now uncontrolled is both harmful and going to waste. Yet, with cooperation, vision, sound planning, and money this water could be put to beneficial, multiple-purpose use.

I am sure this commitee will carefully review the potentialities of the McGee Bend project and, if found to be economically sound, I hope it will provide the necessary green light for further detailed planning and construction.

Mr. ANGELL. If there is nothing further, the hearing on this matter will be closed.

(Whereupon, the committee proceeded to the consideration of business in executive session.)

RIVERS AND HARBORS OMNIBUS BILL

THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 1954

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
Washington, D. C.

The Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors met at 1:30 p. m., Hon. Homer D. Angell (chairman), presiding.

Mr. ANGELL. The Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors of the Committee on Public Works will please be in order. We will take up as our first project this afternoon the Fall River Harbor, Mass.

Colonel Allen, will you present this item for the Army engineers?

STATEMENT OF COL. J. U. ALLEN, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY-Resumed

Colonel ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, the report on the Fall River Harbor project is submitted in accordance with the resolution of the House Public Works Committee, of the 6th of July 1949.

FALL RIVER HARBOR, MASS.

Fall River is located about 50 miles south of Boston, just at the end of Narragansett Bay; Narraganset Bay is in here, on the river, at the upper portion [indicating].

The population of Fall River is slightly less than 300,000 people, with the tributary areas, the metropolitan area, and Fall River. The industry of Fall River consists primarily of textiles and rubber products, brass, copper, and silver manufacturing industries. A good many of these industries use fuel oil for the generation of power. The committee for Fall River 1952 was nearly $2 million; it increased 1 million tons since 1944; in other words, it doubled in the last 10 years. Ninety percent of that tonnage was fuel oil. It was brought into the terminal at Tiverton, R. I., and Fall River.

The harbor has a number of terminal facilities with depths of berths averaging from 26 to 35 feet, with numerous small terminals with lesser depths.

The State of Massachusetts has expended nearly $2 million in recent years for the development of the State piers in Fall River, in order to generate the additional cargo and the additional tonnage for the port of Fall River.

The existing project for Fall River consists of a 35-foot channel from the Mount Hope Bay, over to the Tiverton waterfront; thence northward along the river front to the general Fall River area, up

through two bridges and up through the Tauton River, all authorized at a depth of 35 feet with varying widths. That project is completed with the exception of a section of 134 miles from the MassachusettsRhode Island boundary, shown here, to the juncture with the other channels. When this 35-foot river front channel was authorized from Mount Hope Bay up along the river front, the previous 30-foot channel which went out in the midsection of the bay was abandoned. And no maintenance has been done on this channel since the adoption of this project to the 35 feet.

Local interests now desire that the 30-foot channel alinement be reauthorized, that is, that the project be modified to terminate the 35-foot project at the extension of the present project depth [indicating] and picking it up in here and reactivate this alinement to a depth of 35 feet.

The reason for their desires are these: About 80 percent of the traffic coming into Fall River terminates up in this area [indicating], and ships now terminate at that point-use the 30-foot channel at the high tide.

They desire to eliminate any routes along this way and they desire to have this project abandoned with respect to the depth of 35 feet. The Chief of Engineers, after the recommendation of the division engineer and the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, recommends the adoption of the midbay channel at a depth of 35 feet, a width of 400 feet, and the modification of the project to eliminate this portion from the existing authorization. The cost of that recommendation would be $694,000.

The benefit-cost ratio of the project is 1.1, the benefits being derived from damages, ship damages, by reason of navigating the portion of the channel, saving of the ship's time going the direct route as opposed to the route along the riverfront.

The State of Massachusetts concurred in the finding of the Chief of Engineers. The State of Rhode Island is disappointed in the abandonment of the 35-foot channel at this point [indicating], the Massachusetts-Rhode Island boundary being right in here.

The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress and has no comment to make on the report. Other agencies have no objection.

Mr. ANGELL. Colonel, why was the more direct route abandoned and the route along the shore adopted?

Colonel ALLEN. It was thought, at that time, Mr. Chairman-there was a feeling that the adoption of this alinement would encourage the development of industry and terminal facilities along here [indicating]. The State of Massachusetts, however, has pointed out it has developed terminals up in here and that they now desire to have a more straight shot out of the Mount Hope Bay as opposed to the riverfront channel.

Mr. MACK. What is the length of that through channel?

Colonel ALLEN. The new channel?

Mr. MACK. It will have about what length?

Colonel ALLEN. It would be about 211⁄2 miles from here [indicating] and about 134 miles from here [indicating].

Mr. MACK. There is no need for a turning basin in that short distance?

Colonel ALLEN. No.