name implies, is located at the northernmost tip of Chesapeake Bay and cuts across the narrow neck of Maryland and Delaware to join the waters of the Chesapeake with those of the Delaware River. One has only to visualize the location of this canal to discern its importance, not only to the commerce and industry of our Middle Atlantic States, but equally to our Nation as a whole as a defense waterway of incalculable value in time of emergency or war. This canal, with the proposed improvements, would furnish an economical and accessible means of water transportation for both commercial and defense goods between the large industrial centers of the Delaware River Valley, such as Philadelphia, Camden, and Wilmington, and the great port of Baltimore, and the many other industrial areas of the Chesapeake. By means of the improved canal, increased quantities of goods might be shipped in substantially larger vessels between these industrial centers without the need of a circuitous trip around the coast of Delaware and the Eastern Shore of Maryland. It also would furnish our eastern seaboard with a more practicable inland waterway between north and south, which means that in time of war our defense goods and the raw materials for our factories could be moved inland away from our coast and thus without fear of attack from hostile submarines. However, if this canal is to be utilized to the full extent of its possibilities— indeed, if its use is to be available to our country in time of war and to meet the expanding needs of our commerce and industry-it is essential that the plan for improvement as approved by the Army Corps of Engineers be put into immediate operation. This proposed project provides for deepening the channel to 35 feet with a bottom width of 450 feet, other necessary improvements to the canal, and also to the anchorage facilities immediately south of the canal in the Elk River. This additional anchorage would also be a valuable adjunct to the port of Baltimore and help meet the growing needs of that port. These improvements would allow deep-draft oceangoing vessels the use of the canal and would aid immeasurably in the navigation of the canal by all vessels. Under present conditions, grounding in the canal is a constant danger and its use except by smaller vessels is extremely hazardous. Accordingly it is most essential to the continued growth and expansion of our great industrial areas of the Atlantic seaboard and the availability of the canal for use in time of war that these much-needed improvements in the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal be authorized and instituted without delay. Mr. ANGELL. If there is no objection, we will proceed in the regular order and will hear from the Army engineers. Colonel Allen, will you report on this project? STATEMENT OF COL. JOHN U. ALLEN, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY-Resumed I Colonel ALLEN. The report on the inland waterway from the Delaware River to the Cheasapeake Bay is submitted in response to a Senate Commerce Committee resolution dated March 28, 1939. would like to remind the committee in order to get this on a proper shade here, this is printed east and west rather than north and south in the conventional manner. North is in this direction. This is the Delaware River and this is Chesapeake Bay. So if you will orient this in your thinking perhaps you will understand the project a little better. The Chesapeake and Delaware Canal is an inland waterway which connects with the Delaware River in the vicinity of Delaware City. It goes through and across and joins up at Elk River with the headwaters of Chesapeake Bay. The canal was dug in the early 19th century by a private organization and company. It was purchased subsequently by the United States and deepened to its present dimensions of 27 feet, with 400-foot and 250-foot varying widths. Mr. ANGELL. The present recommendation is to increase it to 35 feet in depth and 450 feet in width? Colonel ALLEN. That is correct. It was originally a 12-foot barge canal, and was deepened in the early part of this century to the existing dimensions of 27 feet-about 250 feet through here and 27 by 450 feet through the Elk River and Chesapeake Bay portions. It serves as a very obvious connecting link between Chesapeake Bay and the Delaware River and provides an inside passage which will permit ships to transit from the Philadelphia area across into the Baltimore area without going outside. It saves some 286 nautical miles between Baltimore and the Philadelphia area, with corresponding savings between Baltimore and New York ports and Baltimore and European ports. In 1942, by reason of the high wartime traffic, the tonnage carried on this canal was 10 million tons. It is recognized that this is a greatly inflated tonnage by reason of necessity for many ships traveling inside. But in 1950 the traffic amounted to 8 million tons, with some 14,506 transits by vessels. The tonnage which has developed on this canal since its original purchase by the United States has greatly exceeded the tonnages which were estimated in the project document. They have increased from 7 million in 1950 to 8,300,000 in 1952. The value of this canal with respect to a wartime condition I think is readily recognized. It permits the ships to transit this canal in full protection and avoids their going outside in times of a submarine menace such as we had in 1941 and 1942. As I mentioned previously, the existing project is for 27 feet, with widths from 250 to 400 feet. As ship sizes increased both in draft and in length and in beam, it has become increasingly more difficult to transit this canal by reason of its bends-especially the clearances between piers of the existing bridges. There have been since 1938 some 209 reported vessel accidents in the canal by reason of its narrow width and by reason of the narrow clearances between the bridge piers. Of this 209 there have been 104 collisions of vessels with bridge. structures. As a matter of fact, in 1939 the St. George Bridge, which is right between here, was demolished by a collision with a vessel. It was ultimately replaced. In 1942 the Chesapeake City Bridge right in here was demolished by a collision with a vessel and had to be replaced. The peculiarities surrounding this bend in the vicinity of the Pennsylvania Railroad bridge make this bend here particularly hazardous to navigation with regard to transiting it in conditions of tide, where they have to move over and get a square shot at the approaches to the bridge. Based on these difficulties to navigation the shipping interests desire further improvement of the waterway to permit nighttime travel, which is not now accepted; to permit two-way transit by large vessels in certain portions of this area in here, which are limited to oneway transit. Vessels are held up at either end until such time as the canal is cleared for travel in the opposite direction. So the principal improvements desired are the widening and deepening of the waterway, the easing of this bend, and the reconstruction and replacement of existing bridges to permit of a more safe approach to the bridge piers and transiting of the bridges. The plan of improvement recommended by the Chief of Engineers provides for the deepening of the channel to 35 feet. It provides for the widening of the channel to 450 feet from this point clear through. It also provides for an anchorage area in Elk River. Mr. ANGELL. Colonel, what is that distance from the Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay? Colonel ALLEN. The Chesapeake & Delaware Canal is 46 miles from Reedy Point; this total in here is 14 miles through the land cut, and another 5 miles to here, and an additional distance down to here, the total length being 46 miles. One of the larger elements of cost of this project is the replacement of 3 bridges, 1 at Reedy Point, 1 at the site of the present Summit Bridge, and 1 at the Pennsylvania Railroad bridge crossing. The Chesapeake City Bridge has already been reconstructed as a result of a ship collision, and so has the St. Georges Bridge. So the three bridges involved are Reedy Point, the Summit Bridge, for highway traffic, and the Pennsylvania Railroad bridge for rail traffic. Mr. ANGELL. What is the total cost of the bridges? Colonel ALLEN. It is about $35 million out of $101 million. Colonel ALLEN. The original report was $96 million as of August 1952. It is $101 million as of the fall of 1953. This report has been referred to various agencies. The Department of the Interior and the Delaware State Geologist express some concern over the possibility of increased salt water encroachment on the fresh water supplies of Delaware. This is recognized and it is planned in the planning stage to work jointly with the United States Geological Survey and obtain the full services of expert consultants to assure that whatever remedial action, if any is necessary, will be taken in the construction of the project. The Delaware State Highway Department expresses their feeling that it is not a responsibility of the State of Delaware to provide approaches to the bridges landward of the abutments, which is one of the requirements of the Chief of Engineers report. They have expressed their dissatisfaction with the report on that point. The Department of Commerce endorsed the enlargement of the waterway. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of the report to the Congress, but recommends that at the time of construction the design of the bridges be fully explored to assure that a minimum type facility is provided and that an extreme type facility which would be related to greatly increased commerce and vessel requirements not be considered. Specifically they say that— All possibilities of effecting savings through minimizing the cost of canal crossings should be explored and (for railroads and highways) pertinent detailed information furnished this Bureau prior to submission of any estimate of appropriation to initiate construction. The total cost of the project as of the fall of 1953 is $101 million, with total annual charges of $4,080,000. The annual benefit to the project amounts to $5,415,000, with a benefit-cost ratio of 1.33. Mr. ANGELL. Does that $4 million annual cost include the existing cost? Colonel ALLEN. It includes the interest and amortization on the investment. The maintenance dredging, and maintenance of the facility, will be $430,000. Mr. ANGELL. Is that in addition to the maintenance cost that already exists? Colonel ALLEN. No, sir. The maintenance cost for the existing project will be included in this, or wiped out by reason of the larger project. Mr. ANGELL. If the cost is over $4 million, what is the ratio to benefits each year? Colonel ALLEN. The actual maintenance exclusive of interest and amortization is $430,000 annually. The total annual charges, including the maintenance, is $4,080,000, with benefits of $5,415,000. That is all, sir. Mr. ANGELL. Does that conclude your report? Colonel ALLEN. Yes. Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Fallon. Mr. FALLON. Colonel, I am sorry I was not here when you first started to make your report. I had to wait for some people who were going to testify here on behalf of this project. Did you say anything with regard to the possibility of convoy action in case of war, if this is built? Colonel ALLEN. I mentioned the fact that during World War II this had demonstrated its ability to handle large volumes of traffic without the necessity of going outside, and permitting the Navy to concentrate its antisubmarine activities elsewhere than here. Mr. FALLON. Did you testify as to the distance necessary, if this canal is not deepened, for traffic to go around the cape and come up the bay? Colonel ALLEN. Yes, sir. I cited that the distance between Baltimore and Philadelphia was 286 nautical miles that would be saved. It would be 150 miles between Baltimore and New York and New England points, and 115 miles between Baltimore and many European ports. Mr. NEAL. The present depth is 27 feet? Colonel ALLEN. Yes, sir. It was originally a 12-foot barge canal back in 1824 and 1829, when it was constructed. The Federal Government acquired it in the early part of this century and deepened it to 27 feet by 250 feet in width through here, and 400 feet in with down. through here. Mr. ANGELL. Are there any questions? Mr. WARBURTON. Do you have any report on the present condition of the existing Summit Bridge? Colonel ALLEN. We are aware, sir, that the present Summit Bridge is in need of repair and maintenance, and possibly replacement at the present time. Mr. BECKER. I would like to ask one question. How do you arrive at this? I think you said the annual benefits would be $5 million. Colonel ALLEN. Yes, sir. Mr. BECKER. Will you give me an idea of how you arrive at such a figure? Colonel ALLEN. The benefits in a project like this are derived by assembling benefits from a number of different items, such as time saved by vessels which now have to go outside and around from Baltimore into Delaware. A certain assumption has to be made as to the number of vessels that have to go outside now. That additional time, and the additional delay costs over what they could save by going across through here is figured out. Another benefit is the reduction of collisions. I have cited the number of collisions which occurred in this waterway. A certain estimate has to be made and very firm figures can be derived by reason of costs and damages sustained by vessels in collision with bridges, as well as the damages to the vessels themselves. I cited the fact that this is open for daylight traffic, which means at times ships have to wait here with a great amount of delay, and wait for daylight in order to transit the canal. They wait at either end, with no gain to the vessel. If the vessel is in transit or if a vessel has to wait for another vessel to clear before it can enter the canal, there is a delay involved there. That is the basis for the benefits. Mr. BECKER. Thank you. Mr. ANGELL. Are there any other questions of Colonel Allen? (No response.) Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, Colonel, if there are no other questions. The Chair has documents here for submission for the record. One is a statement by Senator Beall, and without objection it will be included in the record at this point. Also I have a telegram from James H. Boyer, and one from J. Paul Bright, Jr., president of the Baltimore Junior Association of Com merce. A letter from Marie and Herbert Parcher, and another telegram from R. George Buchanan, Jr. All of those documents, without objection, will be placed in the record. (The documents referred to are as follows:) PHILADELPHIA, PA., June 15, 1954. Hon. GEORGE A. DONDERO, Chairman, Public Works Committee, New House Office Building, Washington, D. C.: With reference House bill 9520 concerning Delaware and Chesapeake Canal improvements I oppose construction of anchorage in Elk River and urge im provement be done in a way to protect wildlife and recreational facilities in this area. Hon. SAMUEL MCCONNELL, R. GEORGE BUCHANAN, Jr. GLADWYNE, PA., June 15, 1954 New House Office Building, Washington, D. C.: DEAR SIR: As a property owner on Cabin John Creek I sincerely hope you will keep in mind the preservation of wildlife and recreational facilities in conjunetion with proposed bill H. R. 9520 and the associated boat basin. I hope to thank you personally. JAMES H. BOYER. BALTIMORE, MD., June 15, 195}. CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, House of Representatives, New Office Building: It is strongly recommended that the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal project be included in the appropriations bill for immediate action during this session. J. PAUL BRIGHT, Jr., President, BALTIMORE JUNIOR ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE, |