Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, Mr. Sikes. That completes the testimony on this project then.

Mr. SIKES. Thank you.

Mr. ANGELL. Without objection, any statements by Senators Holland and Smathers may be inserted in the record at this point.

(The statements referred to are as follows:)

STATEMENT OF SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this opportunity to file a statement in support of the modification of the existing project at St. Joseph Bay, Fla., as recommended by the Corps of Engineers in House Document 595, 81st Congress. I think it is important to not note that this project will serve the people of three States, and that the tributary area includes no only northwest Florida but also extends north to Columbus, Ga., on the Chattahootchee River and Bainbridge, Ga., on the Flint.

Port St. Joe, Fla., one of the principal towns served by this harbor, has a large paper mill which uses much of the timber and pulpwood in the southern part of the territory. Columbus, Ga., supports many industries such as cotton and textile mills, fertilizer plants, meat packing concerns, machinery and sheetmetal shops, and manufacturers of stone, clay, wood, and glass products. Other towns in the area which will be served by this project have cotton gins, knitting mills, peanut-processing plants, canneries, sawmills, planing and veneer mills, turpentine stills, fertilizer plants, and many other interests. A fuller's-earth plant at Attapulgus, Ga., is the largest of its kind in the world. Agricultural crops such as cotton, peanuts, corn, watermellon, peaches, pecans, and sugarcane are of considerable importance in this area, and the raising of cattle and hogs is increasing. Although many of these commodities will ultimately utilize Port St. Joe as an interchange port between inland waterway and foreign or coastwise steamers, by far the greatest traffic will consist of petroleum products shipped in by tankers in the coastwise service. Port St. Joe ranks as one of the leading ports on the eastern gulf in that enterprise.

The proposed plan of improvement presented by House Document 595 provides for deepening and widening the existing channels from the gulf to the wharves at Port St. Joe. The plan provides for an entrance channel from the gulf 37 feet deep and 500 feet wide at its outer end, and diminishing in width to 400 feet at the first bend, a distance of about 12,000 feet, thence a constant width of 400 feet for a distance of about 31,000 feet to the mouth of St. Joseph Bay, a north channel 35 feet deep and 300 feet wide from the entrance channel to the harbor at Port St. Joe, a distance of about 32,500 feet, and a harbor channel 35 feet deep, 250 feet wide, and 2,400 feet long in the turning basin 100 feet from and parallel to the wharves. The plan is designed to permit entry and navigation of T-2 class tankers to the unloading docks. T-2 tankers and similar types will be the principal components of the tanker fleet in the near future, and require a channel depth of at least 35 feet for safe operation.

Mr. Chairman, House Document 595 sets out in full on pages 12 and 13 the unusually heavy expenditures made by local interests in the past in St. Joseph Bay, but I want to emphasize the fact that local interests contributed $20,000 toward the first phase of the Federal project included in the Rivers and Harbors Act of July 25, 1912, and were required by the Rivers and Harbors Act of August 26, 1937, which modified the original project, to provide terminal facilities adequate for full utilization of improvements, and furnish, free of cost to the United States, suitable spoil-disposal areas for new work and subsequent maintenance. The Rivers and Harbors Act of March 2, 1945, provided that in connection with the south channel local interests give assurance that they would hold and save the United States free from claims for damages resulting from claims for reimbursement of expenditures incurred for the original construction work performed by local interests.

Many thousands of dollars have been spent by local interests on other improvements, such as the Gulf County Canal which connects St. Joseph Bay with the Intracoastal Waterway. This canal, which is now part of the Federal project for the Intracoastal Waterway, was originally constructed at a cost to local interests of $200,000. They have spent many thousands of dollars for dredging in this area and terminal and transfer facilities have been built at

great expense. Local interests will continue this pattern of cooperation if the project before you today is approved. Under the proposed plan they will be required to:

(a) Furnish free of cost to the United States all spoil-disposal areas necessary for construction and maintenance of the modified project when and as required; (b) Hold and save the United States free from all damages that may result from the improvement or any subsequent maintenance thereof;

(c) Furnish assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that they will provide and maintain adequate depths between the docks and the edge of the proposed channel as may be required by shipping.

The engineers advise me that a recent evaluation of this project show the benefit-to-cost ratio of this project to be 1.25 to 1, with an estimated Federal first cost to the Corps of Engineers of $1,312,000. In my opinion, this project is amply justified in House Document 595, and I urge its approval by this committee.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR SMATHERS FILED WITH SUBCOMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate the opportunity afforded me in joining with my colleagues of the Florida delegation in support of the Apalachicola Bay, St. Joseph Bay, Hillsboro Harbor, and Rice Creek projects now under consideration by your committee.

As this committee knows surveys were conducted by the Corps of Engineers on each of these proposed projects and such surveys found them to be economically justified. As a result, recommendations were made to the Congress for their authorization. I find myself wholeheartedly in agreement with such recommendations which will effect substantial benefits to our economy and national security, as well as to provide much needed flood control resulting in reduction of damage to farming and grazing lands. Florida and the Nation will benefit from the sound economy upon which these projects are predicated.

Mr. Chairman, all of us in the Congress are familiar with the phrase "pork barrel" and its use by misguided persons to oppose undertakings which were worthy of public support and against which effective arguments could not be raised.

The entire civil functions program of the Army engineers has been from time to time called a "pork barrel" program, when in truth and fact it is anything but a spoils program, or a system under which political loot is divided.

It seems to me that it is time to rewrite political lexicons to eliminate that word or phrase and to honestly face the issue of whether or not Federal appropriations are justified to accomplish certain public works.

It has been used too many times to stampede otherwise sound-thinking citizens and legislators to oppose public works which are based on principles as simple as the old axiom "a stitch in time saves nine."

We have been told so many times that it is good to save money regardless of any consequences, and that any undertaking to improve and conserve our natural resources is a political “pork barrel,” that a costly injustice is being perpetuated in our Nation.

For instance, the Congress last year saw fit to completely eliminate from the appropriations bill all support for the central and southern Florida flood-control program. This was done on the grounds of economy-to save money.

The Congress recess was not 2 months old before the same administration, hearing reports from Florida (and I personally made some of those reports) declared half the State a disaster area because of floods.

As a result, three separate and distinct disaster aid programs were authorized and the Federal Government began spending money generously to assist our farmers, growers, and cattlemen who had suffered serious damage because of flood conditions.

Now, I do not make the claim that a generous appropriation last year would have prevented these floods and made programs of assistance unnecessary.

But I do say that the more quickly we carry the flood-control program to completion, the sooner will such programs of aid be unnecessary.

The budget next year carried about $32 million for this giant project, and we need more than twice that amount.

It seems to me that the Congress must decide whether we should continue to pay out millions every year to repair flood damage, to replace washed out farms and drowned pastures and cattle, or whether we will once and for all

spend the necessary money to complete this system which will prevent both floods and droughts.

In the light of these factors which are so important to our national security, to the development of our national resources and the maintenance of sound economy, I consider it a signal opportunity to join with my colleagues in support of these vitally important projects. Sound, sensible and practical economy alone dictates that these proposed projects be approved and undertaken at the earliest possible moment.

I feel confident that this committee, with the facts at hand, will also render its support.

HILLSBORO RIVER, FLA.

Mr. ANGELL. We will proceed to the next project, which is Hillsboro River, Fla.

Is Representative Campbell in the hearing room?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANGELL. The usual procedure is to hear the report of the Corps of Engineers first. If it is agreeable to you we will follow that procedure.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANGELL. Colonel Milne, we will be very glad to have you make your presentation at this time.

Colonel MILNE. Mr. Chairman, the report on the Hillsboro River is contained in House Document No. 567 of the 81st Congress, 2d session, as authorized by the House Rivers and Harbors Committee resolution of December 4, 1946.

The Hillsboro River rises in the west-central part of the State of Florida and flows approximately 50 miles in a westerly direction, and empties into Tampa Bay. The existing Federal project at Hillsboro provides for a channel some 12 feet in depth and 200 feet wide to Lafayette Street, then a channel 9 feet in depth to 2,000 feet above Columbus Drive; and from that point to Florida Avenue it provides for the clearing of the river.

The lower part of this project, the 12-foot portion of the channel, has been completed. The remaining authorized project has not been started. In the year 1952 some 369,000 tons of commerce utilized the existing waterway. The commerce consisted primarily of shell and petroleum products.

Local interests have indicated a difficulty in navigation due to the lack of depth and to the snags in the river. However, those difficulties could be largely overcome by the completion of the already authorized Federal project. The original authorization requested that the engineers not only consider the river from the viewpoint of navigation, but also in the interests of flood control.

We have found that from a navigation viewpoint there is no recommendation for improvement to be made to this committee. We did however study a number of improvements designed to eliminate the flood conditions.

This is an area that is subjected to rather infrequent severe floods, but rather frequent moderate floods. In our study of the area we attempted to consider a number of engineering solutions that might improve the flood problem. We studied such things as a complete diversion of the stream. We also looked into the proposition of constructing reservoirs both above and below the city waterworks dam. However, none of these solutions appeared economically justified.

However, the Chief of Engineers does feel that in the interest of flood control the river above Florida Avenue and extending to the city waterworks should be cleared of the snags and debris presently in it. He feels that the benefits which accrue make this particular improvement economically justified. Accordingly he recommends that the Federal Government improve the Hillsboro River above the Florida Avenue intersection by snagging and clearing.

Those recommendations have been furnished to the State of Florida and they indicated their concurrence. Likewise, the Bureau of the Budget indicated they have no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress.

Mr. ANGELL. Colonel Milne, should this more properly be considered then as a flood-control project rather than a river and harbor project? Colonel MILNE. The report is authorized, Mr. Chairman, as a result of a review resolution by the Rivers and Harbors Committee.

Based on the project document, we have estimated the cost of this improvement to be $14,400. Those costs revised to the summer of 1953 show a Federal cost of $16,560. The annual charges, based on that revised cost are $1,125. The annual benefits, again based on the revised costs, are $2,730.

The benefit-cost ratio is 2.43 to 1.

Local cooperation requires the furnishing of all lands, easements, rights-of-way and spoil-disposal areas; make at their expense all alterations to structures and utilities; and hold and save the United States free from damages and maintain a clear channel after completion.

Mr. ANGELL. Are there any additional maintenance charges?

Colonel MILNE. No, sir, because this particular area would be cleared of the snags and debris and turned over to the local interests for their responsibility to maintain.

Mr. ANGELL. And no Federal contribution or money?

Colonel MILNE. That is correct, sir.

Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Scudder, do you have any questions of Colonel Milne?

Mr. SCUDDER. Colonel, what did you say was the benefit-cost ratio? Colonel MILNE. 2.43 to 1.

Mr. SCUDDER. What formula do you use to establish these benefits? Colonel MILNE. This benefit, Mr. Scudder, is based entirely on the reduction in flood damages. This particular stretch of the river is badly clogged. As a result during periods of high rains the water draining into the Hillsboro River tends to back up and flood the surrounding area. With the clearing of the snags and debris the channel would have much better flow characteristics. The water could get to the bay quicker. The improvement would reduce the flood stages.

This recommendation we are making, Mr. Scudder, is of course in conjunction with the already authorized Federal project, which was in the interests of both navigation and flood control.

Mr. SCUDDER. Then the benefits would really be going to the lessening of the flood hazard?

Colonel MILNE. For the project we are discussing today they would be entirely due to flood control.

Mr. ANGELL. Has the channel already been cleared from that point on out in the bay?

Colonel MILNE. The improved Federal project has been only dredged from the bay to Lafayette Street. The remainder of the authorized project has not been undertaken.

Mr. ANGELL. No work was done on that at all?

Colonel MILNE. No, sir.

Mr. SCUDDER. Has it been cleared?

Colonel MILNE. No, sir. It has not.

Mr. ANGELL. How large a stream is it?

Colonel MILNE. It extends for a total of 50 miles.

Mr. ANGELL. Is there any commercial shipping on it?

Colonel MILNE. Yes, sir. Over 300,000 tons in the year 1952.

Mr. ANGELL. I mean proceeding on up?

Colonel MILNE. No, sir. The city waterworks dam above Florida Avenue would preclude navigation beyond that point.

Mr. SCUDDER. Is there navigation above the point indicated in black?

Colonel MILNE. There could be some. My understanding is that the great portion of the existing navigation is contained in the 12foot channel.

Mr. SCUDDER. Will this authorization clear the stream from that point to the waterworks dam?

Colonel MILNE. No, sir. The recommendations, under discussion this morning, are confined to the reach above Florida Avenue.

Mr. SCUDDER. You have authorization for this other project? Colonel MILNE. This has already been authorized. We are recommending in the interests of flood control the channel clearing be extended from Florida Avenue to the city waterworks dam. Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, Colonel Milne.

Are there any further questions of the Colonel?

(No response.)

Mr. ANGELL. Congressman Campbell, we will be glad to hear from

you now.

STATEMENT OF HON. COURTNEY W. CAMPBELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA-Resumed

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want to make my remarks very brief. Before that I would like to call your attention to a few vital points.

Mr. ANGELL. Your statement will be received and incorporated in the record.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you.

(The prepared statement of Representative Campbell is as follows:) STATEMENT OF COURTNEY CAMPBELL, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FIRST DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, FEBRUARY 11, 1954 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appear on behalf of the Hillsboro River, Fla., project for flood control and navigation, House Document No. 567. You are of course familiar with the justification and recommendations of the Army engineers on this project. Actually, there is very little that I can add other than to convey to you the strong feeling of myself and my constituents for your approval of this project.

The Hillsboro River flows through the heart of the city of Tampa. Tampa is the commercial center for a tributary area having a population of approximately 1 million people. The Tampa Bay area is a very rapidly growing area, and as