Mr. AUCHINCLOSs. How high is the clearance, do you know? Mr. AUCHINCLOss. It is an important bridge, is it not? Colonel MILNE. Sixty-five feet above maximum high water. Mr. NEAL. Is that the normal clearance for Mississippi bridges65 feet? Colonel MILNE. There is no such thing as a normal clearance for bridges over the Mississippi River. That varies depending upon the reach of the river you may be in. Mr. SCUDDER. Čolonel, I am very much interested in this type of project, because as I understand it there has been no definite policy established by the Congress as to their participation in recreational harbors. I just wonder how you arrive at a benefit to the Federal Government from the construction of projects such as this. Colonel MILNE. The recreational benefit is one of the most difficult things to try and determine in dollars and cents. I might say, Mr. Scudder, that our people worked long and hard to come up with any type of formula that we felt presented a logical solution to the problem. We worked in very close conjunction with the Bureau of the Budget before we developed our so-called recreational formula, and we have used that consistently since 1950. Generally that formula, when you reduce it to the basic elements, provides that local interests will pay 50 percent of the cost and the Federal Government will pay half." Mr. SCUDDER. I have been hoping for some time to find some definition for a benefit to recreation. I am thoroughly sold on it myself. I believe there is a great benefit from recreation, but how to arrive at it has not been developed, as far as I can find out. Colonel MILNE. There are some things that are very definite. For example, you can determine the damages that will occur to a recreational craft. That is a tangible figure. However, when you try to develop the benefits from recreation it gets into the realm of being intangible. We have done this, Mr. Scudder, in the development of our formula. We estimate the value of the recreational fleet on a depreciated basis. In other words, you take half the cost of the investment. Then for various types of craft we have attempted to develop a percentage figure representing what a man who had a recreational craft for hire would have to charge to insure the soundness of his investment. Let us say the boat cost $5,000. Its average depreciated value would be $2,500. Now, a fair return for that type of boat might be 7 percent per year. So we would assume an operator of such recreational craft who was in the business of hiring them out would have to get 7 percent return. Accordingly we would assume that the benefit that would accrue to a private owner would be eqivalent to the same amount. If, because the facilities are not available, he cannot derive 100 percent benefit from his boat, then he is getting something less than a 7 percent return annually on that boat. If the facilities permit him a 50 percent use of his boat, he is only realizing one-half of his annual benefits. We have computed these percentage factors for various classes of recreational boats. Totaling them all together for any one area we come up with an estimate of average annual recreational benefits. Mr. SCUDDER. There is a situation in my district concerning two small harbors. I imagine in every community there is something similar. These streams have been dredged because of the cargoes that are being carried by them. But at the same time it has encouraged the ownership of pleasure boats. In two instances there have been established boat-manufacturing concerns that are building boats not only for local use but for shipment elsewhere; they also do a large repair business. Those concerns employ a great number of men. One concern was employing as high as 60 men at one time. That most certainly adds to the economy. Also, all the boats that are berthed in the area pay taxes to the local government. That is where their participation would come in, I imagine, in that they have a taxable value in the area. There are a great number of potential harbors in my district that are very much in need of improvement and would develop similar business. So far we have not been able to have them surveyed so as to be in a position to submit them to the Congress for consideration. If we could come up with some sort of formula to include pleasure craft, it would be helpful, then we could start considering these various harbors on that basis. It would be a field for improvement. I am in favor of something being developed along that line. Colonel MILNE. I would like to say, Mr. Scudder, that recreational craft were not always considered commercial vessels. It was not until 1932 that the Congress directed us to consider recreational craft. Only in recent years has the Congress requested surveys to be made of a number of areas for potential recreational sites. We have been working pretty much in the dark. This is the first time that we have presented to the Congress any number of recreational projects based on a formula that we have worked out in conjunction with the Bureau of the Budget. This formula was presented in detail to the committee about 21⁄2 weeks ago and was placed in the record for your information, and in considering the several recreational projects that are before you. Mr. ANGELL. That was in connection with what project, Colonel? Colonel MILNE. It was in connection with the Crooked and Indian Rivers, Mich. Mr. BECKER. Mr. Chairman, could not Colonel Milne and the Board of Engineers in view of Colonel Milne's statement to the effect that he did not know of any precedent for authorization of purely recreational projects and you mentioned specifically the Mississippi River, but you did not exclude other parts of the country, I think I wonder if they could come up with some investigation on their part, of any precedents established in projects of this kind, for the information of the committee? Mr. ANGELL. What do you have to say to that, Colonel Milne? Colonel MILNE. Yes, sir. We could do that, Mr. Chairman. I can say definitely now there have been projects approved by the Congress that had an element of recreation, that is, some of the benefits were recreational. Mr. ANGELL. But what we are concerned about is purely recreational projects, with no other benefits. Colonel MILNE. We can go back into the records of the projects that have been authorized and furnish the committee with a statement of facts on it. Mr. ANGELL. Will you do that, please, for the record at this point? Colonel MILNE. Yes, sir. Mr. BECKER. Mr. Chairman, not just an authorization, but also backed up by appropriations. Colonel MILNE. Yes, sir. (The information requested is as follows:) H. Doc. 566, 80th Cong., 2d sess.. H. Doc. 559, 75th Cong., 3d sess. 0 $136, 500 0 137,300 0 12,000 0 Upper Mississippi Valley Division: Rock Island, Ill. 1950 H. Doc. 257, 81st Cong., 1st sess. H. Doc. 293, 81st Cong., 1st sess. 0 0 8,700 0 0 41, 700 93, 500 25,000 41, 248, 100 60 1 Completed. 2 Authorized along with separate commercial harbors. 3 The navigation portion of the flood-control and navigation plan is for recreational purposes, and a portion of the navigation features were authorized for Federal accomplishment. Includes cost of $1,096,800 for north jetty used to facilitate construction of the flood-control portion of the project. Upon completion of the navigation features, this jetty will become an integral part of the Mission Bay harbor project. Navigation benefits are largely recreational. Benefits attributed in the document to commercial fishing amount to about 13 percent of the total. Does not include $796,900 by Public Works Administration for work authorized by River and Harbor Act of August 26, 1937 (Senate Commerce Committee Print, 75th Cong.); local interests contributed an equal amount. Mr. ANGELL. We have with us our colleague, Congressman Bishop, of Illinois, who is very much interested in this project. We would be very glad to hear from you, Mr. Congressman. STATEMENT OF HON. C. W. BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am very much interested, as I was when the resolution was drawn and when I appeared before the committee in 1953, which was last year, of course. This is of great import to my congressional district. It will have to do with traffic for industrial purposes. We are hoping in the near future that something will be said as to industry going within about 20 miles of this town of Chester, and about 14 miles north toward St. Louis on the Mississippi River, again in my district. In this request, as stated by the engineers, this same thing has been done in other places. Of course, this could be the first on the Mississippi River. A part of the river does damage to those boats that endeavor to park on the east side of the Mississippi River, as the colonel showed you a minute ago. It is impossible to know what time it will hit, and that is the reason why these individuals also pledged themselves to 50 percent of the cost in order to make possible this project which has been pictured to you today. I am sure we will work and put forward every effort to see it is in the budget along with your first okay on the proposition. I think the engineers have drawn a perfect picture, as I see it, on this program. Mr. ANGELL. Are there any questions of our colleague from members of the committee? Mr. MACK. What date was the letter received from the Governor endorsing the project? Mr. BISHOP. This was in 1953. Mr. BRENNAN. April 4, 1952. Mr. MACK. The Governor who endorsed it was the previous Democratic Governor of Illinois, so this is a nonpartisan project. Mr. BISHOP. You can rate it so, but I can assure you the present Governor, who is a Republican, will concur along with the new administration in the city. They were very much interested in this. Thank you. Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. If there are no further witnesses, the committee will stand adjourned. (Whereupon, at 11:40 a. m. the subcommittee adjourned until 10 a. m. the following day, Friday, February 26, 1954.) 39263-54-vol. 1- -30 |