the building of holding dams that would release winter storage during the summertime to stabilize the summer flow of water, so as to provide adequate water for recreational purposes.

We are getting into a new field, and I think the field is well worth exploring and is entitled to assistance from the Federal Government. Mr. ANGELL. If the gentleman will yield, before the gentleman arrived I stated we had only an hour. We have some out-of-town witnesses here whom we would like to hear today. I think the subject we are discussing is certainly one of great interest to the committee and to the Nation at large, and perhaps it could be more profitably pursued in executive session at some later dates.

If it is agreeable to the committee we will proceed now to hear the witnesses.

Dr. Neal, do you have any questions?

Mr. NEAL. No, I have no questions.

Mr. FALLON. Did the colonel state the ratio of benefits?

Mr. ANGELL. Yes. The ratio of benefits is 3.95 to 1. As I said earlier, we have with us our colleague, Edward J. Robeson, Jr. We are very glad to have you present at this time and we will be glad to hear you and have you call your witnesses.

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. ROBESON, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

Mr. ROBESON. Mr. Chairman, speaking for myself and my friends from Virginia Beach, I appreciate your allowing us to appear. We realize that the time is limited.

I want to say right now this is a publicly owned beach we are talking about at Virginia Beach. It is not privately, but is publicly

owned.

The project has already had over $1 million spent on it by Virginia Beach, and more must be spent. The State of Virginia has appropriated on three different occasions money for this job because it is a public beach.

We have here the chairman of the Virginia Beach Erosion Committee, and we have the mayor of Virginia Beach. I am sure they would like to speak from their factual knowledge of the subject. So I would like to present first the mayor of Virginia Beach, Mayor Murray, and let him speak to you.

Mr. ANGELL. Mayor Murray, the committee will be very glad to hear you, sir. Have you a prepared statement?

STATEMENT OF HON. P. F. MURRAY, MAYOR OF VIRGINIA BEACH

Mayor MURRAY. Sir, I do not have a prepared statement. I will speak at very little length.

Mr. ANGELL. Very well. You may proceed, Mayor Murray. Mayor MURRAY. I am very grateful to you gentlemen, all of you, for hearing our plea to take care of this matter. It is a fact that we are a very little city, but we are a highly important resort area. This is a fact also, that this is a boundary of the United States, and it is a boundary of the State of Virginia. We as a little bit of a city happen to be sitting there.

This erosion occurred, and if we had not gone on forcefully and promptly, our city would have fallen into the sea. That is how bad

the erosion was, and how quickly we needed to get busy and do someing about it.

Now, this has all been done definitely under the direction of the Army engineers adhering strictly to their plan and procedure. We will carry on and continue to nourish and care for this beach. I do not think the beach is in any particular danger of washing away suddenly, but like your clothing and shoes, it wears, and it needs repair every year.

We are asking you gentlemen to consider the reimbursement to our city for the amount that we have spent. Incidentally, gentlemen, we have really hocked our city up to the limit in bond issues to make this repair. It was all done with a feeling and understanding that if we went on with the Engineers and pursued their plan we would be rightfully entitled to receive a fair amount from the Federal Government to help in restoring the beach.

Again, gentlemen, I thank you very much and I will not take your time. I want to turn this over to these gentlemen who have the technical information to answer your questions and give you other information.

Mr. ANGELL. Mayor Murray, we thank you very much for your statement.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. May I ask a question?

Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Auchincloss.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Mayor, I would like to know if some years ago a barrier was placed off the beach by sinking some vessels in concrete and stone, and so forth?

Mayor MURRAY. Yes, sir. That was a very small groin.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Was that at all successful?

Mayor MURRAY. No, sir. I do not think it was. I think our engineer has made several visits there to find out, and he has given it really careful study, along with the Army engineers, to see if it is helpful or harmful. I would like to have those gentlemen say whether it is or not.

Mr. ANGELL. Perhaps they will testify on it.

Mayor MURRAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. SCUDDER. Mr. Mayor, I have visited your beach and stopped at one of the hotels on the beach. In what location would the beach pavilion be?

Mayor MURRAY. The beach pavilion is right up here between 35th Street, on this side of 35th Street, which is the playground.

Mr. SCUDDER. I mean the large hotel, the Cavalier Hotel.

Mayor MUURAY. The Cavalier is right in here.

Mr. SCUDDER. Is that where most of the erosion is taking place? Mayor MURRAY. No, sir. The worst erosion is taking place down at the southern end.

Mr. SCUDDER. Is that right?

Mayor MURRAY. And it gradually ate in until the whole beach was affected, and the whole beach has been pumped and restored, starting at this point and extending beyond the Cavalier Hotel.

Mr. ANGELL. The Cavalier is back on high ground.

Mayor MURRAY. It is, but it owns its property through to the ocean and has its beach coming up right on the ocean. I think I would like to say that this beach has been regarded over years and years as a public thing. There is nothing fenced off, and no property owner

feels that he is justified in calling the beach his. It is a wide-open beach and is used as that.

Mr. SCUDDER. I must say it is a beautiful beach.

Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, Mayor Murray.

Mr. Robeson, you may call your next witness.

Mr. ROBESON. I would like to have Mr. Church, chairman of the Virginia Beach Erosion Commission, give you some of the details concerning this project at this time.

Mr. ANGELL. All right, Mr. Church. We will be glad to have your

statement.

STATEMENT OF E. H. CHURCH, CHAIRMAN OF THE VIRGINIA BEACH EROSION COMMISSION

Mr. CHURCH. I have a statement I would like to pass around, showing pictures of what was done prior to the work and what was done afterward.

One of the members of this committee asked a moment ago where the Cavalier Hotel is. I would like to advise you that the Cavalier was excluded. It is considered to be privately owned and the Government will not participate in any work that was done there.

The Virginia Beach Erosion Commission was set up by the State Legislature of Virginia through an enabling act passed in 1952. The commission comprised of five men appointed by the Governor to finance this work and to push it on through to its completion.

We have with us today our consulting engineer, who has followed the project and worked in very close harmony with the Army engineers on it.

I would like to read this report, if I may.

JUSTIFICATION FOR EARLY ADOPTION OF A PROJECT FOR BEACH EROSION CONTROL AT VIRGINIA BEACH, VA.

1. Location

Virginia Beach, Va., the State's only ocean resort, is located on the Atlantic seaboard, 22 miles north of the Virginia-North Carolina State line, 3.5 miles south of Cape Henry at the entrance to Chesapeake Bay, and 19 miles east of Norfolk, Va.

2. Description

The city is extensively developed as a resort and residential area. Numerous hotels, boardinghouses, inns, tourists' homes, bathhouses, hotel cottages, and restaurants cater seasonably to the tourist trade, and enjoy a gross business conservatively estimated at $12 million per year. The city has a permanent The community became a city, second class, under an act passed by the State population of 5,300 (1950 census), and a summer population of about 45,000. legislature in 1952. The city fronts 3% miles along the Atlantic Ocean. A combined concrete promenade and relatively light concrete seawall 1.93 miles long, built in 1927 is owned by the city. The United States owns a beach frontage of 205 feet, the site of a Coast Guard station. The remainder of the beach, less than 5 percent, is privately owned.

3. Economic justification

(a) The resort business is the only industry and the life blood of the city. The loss of its beach would result in bankruptcy for most of the city's inhabitants. (b) Critical erosion at Virginia Beach demanded that the beach be restored as early as possible, without waiting for the formal adoption of a project by the Congress or the appropriation of Federal funds. To have delayed the restoration would have meant physical as well as economic disaster for the city.

(c) The tourist trade is the second largest industry in the State of Virginia. By reason of its national prominence and pulling power, Virginia Beach con

tributes materially to the economy associated with tourist travel. This fact has been acknowledged by resolution recently adopted by the Virginia Travel Council. 324,000 vacationers visited Virginia Beach last summer. The numbers coming from various States are shown on the map attached as exhibit A.

(d) Virginia Beach is Virginia's only ocean resort and annually affords healthful recreational benefits to large numbers, as shown above. Moreover, it is located in one of the most highly strategic military areas in the world and during the recreational season is host to thousands of service personnel stationed at naval base, Norfolk; naval amphibious base, Little Creek; naval air stations, Norfolk and Oceana; Fleet Air Defense Training Center, Dam Neck; naval shipyard, Portsmouth; Langley Air Force Base; and Fort Story, the Army Amphibious Training Center and site of the first Nike installation in Tidewater, Va. Over one-third of the city's school population is either service connected or federally connected.

(e) The project, as recommended for adoption, provides for initial restoration of the beach within the corporate limits of the city; and for a system of 21 groins, to be constructed when and if experience proves the need and economic justification for them. Based upon the expenditure of $683,000 by the city for initial dredging for beach restoration, which has already been accomplished, an estimated cost of $40,000 for annual maintenance; and computing interest and amortization at 2% percent over the estimated 50-year life of the project, the relation between the annual non-Federal public benefits and the annual charge is 3.2 to 1. When compared with the total benefits, both private and non-Federal public, the benefit-cost ratio is 5.1 to 1.

The comprehensive plan, including the deferred groin construction, is estimated to cost $1,618,000, including the $683,000 expended by the city. On the basis of this total figure, with $24,700 as the estimated cost of maintenance under the comprehensive plan, and computing interest and amortization at 22 percent over the 50-year life, the relation between the annual non-Federal public benefits and the annual charge is 2.5 to 1. When compared with the total benefits to accrue to the comprehensive plan, the benefit-cost ratio is 3.97 to 1.

It is firmly believed that the above ratios compare favorably with the ratios usually reported for river and harbor, flood control and multiple purpose, and other beach-erosion projects.

(f) Following the recommendation contained in the cooperative report prepared by the Corps of Engineers, the city employed a firm of consulting engineers and thoroughly investigated the proposal of developing and utilizing a hydraulic source of material for their initial beach-restoration work. By using the hydraulic dredging method, the city was able to accomplish the job at a saving of approximately $477,000, or 41 percent, under that estimated by the Corps of Engineers in their cooperative report, whose estimate was based on utilizing dune material and trucking it to the beach. When applied to the applicable Federal share of the cost of the work this savings amounts to approximately $155,000, or nearly half that indicated in the report.

(g) The adoption of this project would entail Federal participation to the extent of only one-third of the actual cost of the entire project.

(h) The nature of the resort business requires that the city construct and maintain public services and utilities for a populace several times in excess of the needs of the permanent year-round residents. This feature alone usually results in the advance commitment of the city's financial assets to capital outlay and maintenance; particularly so because such facilities have to be constantly expanded from year to year. When the acute problem of the erosion of its beach was superimposed on these needs, the city had to increase its bonded indebtedness almost to the limit fixed by law in the State of Virginia, by the issuance of $900,000 of general obligation bonds for the beach-erosion program. These bonds were issued with the hope and understanding that, upon adoption of a Federal project, one-third of the cost of beach restoration would be reimbursed by the United States.

(i) Since completion of the beach-restoration work the city has demonstrated its continuing interest in the preservation of the beach by employing a firm of consulting engineers to maintain a year-round, year-to-year study of its beach and the maintenance thereof. Maintenance work is being accomplished as the need develops, and long-range plans for the protection and preservation of the restored beach are about completed.

(j) In conjunction with its beach restoration work and without calling on the Federal Government for aid, the city is gradually developing a small boat harbor in Lake Wesley for use as a sport fishing and recreational boat harbor.

(k) In addition to the foregoing justification statements, reference is made to the cooperative report which contains a complete economic evaluation of the tangible and intangible benefits to accrue to the proposed project.

4. Action by the city of Virginia Beach

(a) Formal application for the cooperative study of erosion conditions at Virginia Beach was made by the city of Virginia Beach on April 8, 1946, in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of the River and Harbor Act of July 3, 1930, as amended.

(b) During the course of the preparation of the report the city of Virginia Beach assisted in the preparation of economic data in connection with the determination of the economic worth of the project.

(c) In carrying out the beach restoration work, all recommendations contained in House Document No. 186, 83d Congress, 1st session (Virginia Beach, Va., beach erosion control study) were literally followed; and, in addition, frequent consultations were had with the district engineer at Norfolk and with members of the staff of the Beach Erosion Board at Washington, D. C. All recommendations by these authorities were embraced and followed in the restoration project.

(d) A brief report of the results of the beach restoration is given in the attached brochure, dated March 16, 1953, exhibit B; and a somewhat fuller report in the attached reprint from the Norfolk-Virginia Pilot of March 29, 1953, exhibit C.

5. Action by the State

(a) By special legislation, the State of Virginia has on three different occasions appropriated money for combating erosion at Virginia Beach.

(b) Virginia Beach Erosion Commission was created by act of State legislature in 1952. Prominent citizens of city appointed to serve on commission by governor of State.

(c) Appropriate State agencies have studied the cooperative report on erosion at Virginia Beach and, in addition to concurring in the recommendation contained therein, have prepared supplementary reports further attesting to the economic value of the project and the vital necessity for its early completion.

Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Church, our time is rather limited, as I said a moment ago, due to the fact that we will be called on the floor soon. Would it be agreeable if we include the balance of your information in the record?

Mr. CHURCH. All right, sir.

(The information furnished by Mr. Church is as follows:)