on the Elk. This park was given the State of Maryland by the late William L. Abbott, an eminent naturalist and explorer. It is a marvelous wooded area with cabins and picnic groves. It provides the kind of recreation and social life which exemplifies the Elk River— the idea of family recreation rather than individual recreation. Its preservation must be encouraged. An anchorage on the Elk might indicate the use of Cabin John Creek, or portion thereof, for a dredging dump just as Pearces Creek, several miles to the south, was used during the making of the 27-foot channel 17 years ago. Cabin John Creek is a beautiful small estuary, a haven for small boats, and is, upstream, protected from serious wave action from passing ships. In the past few years a number of attractive cottages have been built here. It would appear that the logical space for an anchorage would be near Aberdeen Proving Ground, where the shore is not available for recreation and where there would be least damage to recreational areas. Mr. FALLON. Are you reading from the statement that you filed, Mr. Jeanes, or is this in addition? Mr. JEANES. It is part of it, but I come now to this, which is the specific amendments to the bill. I thought I should read these; should I not? Mr. FALLON. It is all right with me, but I did not want you to read a whole statement and file the same statement. Mr. JEANES. I am reading from my statement. Mr. FALLON. Could you not give us the high points? Mr. JEANES. The other thing I would like to say is this: Before voting on the bill I wish it were possible for your committee or a number of you Congressmen to come to the upper Elk River and we would show you the conditions as they exist today. I think it is important for you to see what we are talking about. We could arrange such a meeting on short notice and show you the conditions we feel ought to be preserved. We would be very much interested in taking you on such a trip, that were possible. Mr. ANGELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Jeanes. Are there any questions from the members of the committee? (No response.) Mr. ANGELL. If not, we thank you for your testimony, and I believe, Mr. Fallon, that completes the testimony. Mr. FALLON. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make one unanimous-consent request. Mr. ANGELL. Very well. Mr. FALLON. That is, I be allowed to extend my remarks following the Army engineers. Mr. ANGELL. That will be permitted. STATEMENT OF THOMAS W. S. DAVIS, REPRESENTING THE STATE OF VIRGINIA PORTS AUTHORITY Mr. DAVIS. My name is Davis. I represent the Virginia State Ports Authority, an agency of the State of Virginia. We are not in a position at this time to make a statement either in favor of or in opposition to this project. Tomorrow we are having a board of commissioners meeting in Norfolk which I am attending. We wonder if it 39263-54-vol. 1- -58 might be possible to hold the record open for a possible statement from us within the next week or 10 days. Mr. ANGELL. I have consulted with Mr. Fallon and we will keep it open a week anyway. Mr. DAVIS. If that is too long a period of time it is entirely possible we may be able to notify you on Monday. Mr. ANGELL. Without objection, the statement you file with the committee will be received and placed in the record. Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, sir. Mr. ANGELL. That completes the hearing on that subject. PORT ROYAL SOUND TO BEAUFORT, S. C. Mr. ANGELL. We have one other project on which we have had a hearing before. The project to which I refer is the Port Royal Sound to Beaufort, S. C., channel dredging and turning basin, House Document 469 of the 81st Congress. Mr. Rivers, our colleague, is here, and very much interested in that project. Mr. Rivers, I believe you made a statement before. Do you want to add to that at this time? Mr. RIVERS. I believe I would like to have the Corps of Engineers testify first. Mr. ANGELL. Then we will hear from Colonel Allen. Colonel ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, you may recall that at the time this project was presented we were unable under the changed conditions which then prevailed, to make a recommendation that the project be adopted. We asked for time in order further to study the impact of the changed conditions and make a report to you with respect to the adoption of the project. We have now completed that study which the committee requested and the Chief of Engineers has sent a letter to the Public Works Committee pointing out that the conditions which are anticipated to develop as a result of this project result in a favorable report, with the benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.15. The total cost of the project, as previously testified to, was $765,000. The full description of the project and the discussion of it was presented by Colonel Milne on February 9. Mr. ANGELL. The Chair has a copy of that letter, dated June 15, addressed to the chairman of the committee from General Sturgis. Without objection, that will be received and included in the record at this point. (The letter from the Department of the Army dated June 15, 1954, is as follows:) Hon. GEORGE A. DONDERO, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, Chairman, Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In testifying on February 9, 1954, before the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors on the recommendation contained in House Document 469, 81st Congress, 2d session, for a channel from the Atlantic Ocean through Port Royal Sound to Port Royal-Beaufort, S. C., the representative of the Corps of Engineers stated that certain changes in conditions in the project area prevented an endorsement of the improvement at that time. The chairman of the subcommittee requested that further statements be submitted and incorporated in the record. I am pleased to offer the following report. Review of this project has been required at this time because the Bureau of the Budget, in letter dated January 30, 1950, printed in the project document, recommended that the construction of the proposed improvement should not be undertaken until the proposed expansion of the productive potential of the Plywood Plastic Corp., upon which was premised a sizable part of the prospective commerce justifying the project, had been realized, or until other developments provided satisfactory assurances that the proposed navigation facilities would be properly utilized. After submission of the report, it was found that use of an improved channel by the Plywood Plastic Corp. would not materialize. As noted in the hearing testimony, the South Carolina State Ports Authority made a detailed analysis of commodities that would move through the proposed channel. The major item of prospective commerce is blackstrap molasses. It was estimated by the authority that, within 5 years, approximately 250,000 tons annually could be distributed through the port, beginning with 7,500 to 10,000 tons per month the first year. A lease to this effect is presently being negotiated between the ports authority and certain Cuban interests. According to information furnished by the Department of Agriculture the use of blackstrap molasses for cattle and other livestock feed is rapidly increasing and will continue to increase, particularly in corn deficient areas. The South Atlantic seaboard is placed in this category. A requirement study indicates a possible consumption of blackstrap molasses for the South Atlantic coast area tributary to Port Royal of about 1,350,000 tons annually based upon the total number of cattle on farms in the year 1950. In view of the proposed lease, we estimate that 12% percent or about 170,000 tons per year of this total requirement would move through Port Royal into the area with a saving in transportation costs over other ports. A total of 14 representative consuming points were selected in North and South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Virginia, and a comparison of rates from Port Royal with the lowest published competitive ports indicates savings ranging from $0.20 to $4.40 per ton with an average of $0.98 per ton. Applying the average savings per ton to the 170,000 tons estimated above, the annual benefits would average $167,000 from commerce in this commodity. Sponsors of the improvement also anticipate movement in deep-draft vessels of varying amounts of other commodities. These include 20,000 tons of fertilizers from European ports, with anticipated savings of $4,200 annually, and 40,000 tons of lumber with savings of $16,000 annually. Benefits to the United States Navy and Marine Corps establishments have not been evaluated but would further increase the value of this project. The total Federal first cost is estimated at $765,000 based on fall 1953 prices. The total annual charges for the improvement are estimated at $163,000 of which $136,000 will be maintenance dredging. The estimated annual benefits, as shown above, total $187,200. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.15. Accordingly, after due consideration of information now available, I am pleased to confirm the favorable recommendation in the project document for improvement of the channel, Port Royal Sound to Beaufort, S. C. Sincerely yours, B. T. ROBINSON, (For S. D. Sturgis, Jr., major general, Chief of Engineers). Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Rivers, we would be glad to hear from you at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. MENDEL L. RIVERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA-Resumed Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, may I say you will recall my first appearance in February regarding this project. To implement what the Corps of Army Engineers have stated, we have shown you that this is a worthwhile project and a beneficial one. Now come the Army engineers and sustain the position which we told you would be forthcoming from the Army engineers. This project now has the approval of the Army engineers, with a benefit-cost ratio of 1.15. We again reiterate our former statement that there is no port on the eastern seaboard that would be more beneficial both to the military and to civilian oceangoing traffic than will be Port Royal. This is one project which I again commend to your committee for your favorable consideration. The Army engineers sustain us in our position, and I want to thank your committee for giving us the opportunity to get the final report and the favorable report of the Army engineers. Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, Mr. Rivers. I believe that concludes the hearing and the committee stands adjourned. (Whereupon, at 2: 55 p. m. the committee adjourned.) RIVERS AND HARBORS OMNIBUS BILL THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 1954 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS, COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Homer D. Angell presiding. Mr. ANGELL. The committee will come to order. This is the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors of the Committee on Public Works. CHANNEL FROM HATTERAS INLET TO HATTERAS AND ROLLINSON CHANNEL The first project we will take up is the channel from Hatteras Inlet to Hatteras, and Rollinson Channel, House Document 411 of the 83d Congress. I understand that is the one you are interested in, Mr. Bonner? Mr. BONNER. Yes. Mr. ANGELL. We have with us our colleague, Congressman Bonner, who is very much interested in this project and I assured him we would hear him first, as he has other appointments to keep. Mr. Bonner, we will be glad to hear you at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. HERBERT C. BONNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, Hatteras Harbor is probably the most isolated spot on the Atlantic coast, certainly on the coast of North Carolina. It is 40 miles or more across from the harbor to the mainland; that is, across Pamlico Sound. The harbor is situated just southeast of Cape Hatteras. In the area of Hatteras, the fish trawlers from the Chesapeake and the inland waters of North Carolina make their largest catches. This project is to build a breakwater to protect the small harbor on Cape Hatteras. In 1944, there was a severe storm at the harbor and a loss to vessels of about $25,000, and periodically those storms occur and cause a tremendous loss to the fishing fleet. The report of the engineers is most favorable and full and goes into lengthy detail as to the benefit that the breakwater at Hatteras Harbor would provide. In addition to that, as set forth in the engineers' report, the State of North Carolina has given to the Federal Government $1 million toward the creation of a national seashore park which takes in the |