Senator ELLENDER. I understand that Mr. Robert Brooks is out of the country, and desires to have this statement put in the record. (The statement referred to follows:) ST. LOUIS, Mo., March 2, 1959. CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, DEAR SIR: The alteration of the Wabash bridges at Meredosia and Valley City, Ill., under the Truman-Hobbs Act is a contractual obligation of the Secretary of the Army and the Wabash Railroad whereby it was agreed that two railroad bridges should be eliminated which were an obstruction to navigation, and a single bridge should be built to replace these two. There is agreed on apportionment of cost between the railroad and the Government. So Congress, 3 years ago, appropriated $167,000 to get this started, and has each year since appropriated the Federal share under this agreement. Work started that same fiscal year-the river piers were built, then the land piers were constructed. Last year, you appropriated an amount for the superstructure. The work on the new bridge and approaches at Valley City, Ill., is progressing satisfactorily, and is expected to be completed by August 1959. The completion of construction of the new bridge and approaches is now about 75 percent complete. The dismantling of the two old bridges will commence about September 15, with completion about June 1, 1960. The contract agreement between the Secretary of the Army and the Wabash Railroad Co. several years ago set up that the present Wabash Railroad Co. bridge across the Illinois River at Meredosia, Ill., was an unreasonable obstruction to free navigation of the Illinois River due to its location in relation of a curve in the river and inadequate horizontal clearance through the drawspan. Traffic through this bridge and the Valley City Bridge, about 10 miles downstream, annually averages 1,100 boats, and 3,500 barges, with barge fleets often 1,000 feet in length. The 114-foot clearance of the Meredosia Bridge, which is just downstream from a State highway bridge, is insufficient for the tows passing through the bridge. Under normal conditions, the breaking of long tows is required, and under adverse weather conditions, passage through the bridge is extremely trying and a dangerous task. Collisions by vessels with the bridge structure have been frequent, resulting in damage to the vessels, barge tows, and to the bridge. During the period January 1, 1951, to April 20, 1953, the Meredosia Bridge was struck 71 times by boats, with damages to the bridge ranging up to $13,000 per collision. During this same period, the Valley City Bridge was struck 14 times. Several collisions of vessels with the bridge structure were sufficiently severe to put the bridge out of service, thereby interrupting rail service. Damage of a more serious nature could occur even to the extent of completely blocking waterway traffic, as well as disrupting rail service. There were 27 collisions in 1954, 35 collisions during 1955, 17 collisions in 1956, and 38 collisions in the calendar year 1957. The record of the boatowner, date of collisions, and estimated damage has been given to your honorable committee as an itemized account in the last two presenations. The following is a statement showing damage to this Meredosia Bridge from January 1, 1958, to January 1, 1959, showing dates, name of boats, owners, and damage in details. Wabash Railroad Co. statement showing damage to Illinois River bridge No. 280 at Meredosia, January 1, 1958 to July 1, 1958 The item of $528,000 approved by the budget is the Government's share of completing this entire project-this, of course, with the amount to be furnished by the Wabash Railroad Co. as per agreement. When this new bridge is completed and the two present bridges dismantled, this hazardous condition will have been permanently removed to navigation. This project is in the interest of the public and all the rules and regulations of your committee have been complied with. There is no objection from anyone. Your consideration in the past and at present is very much appreciated. Yours respectfully, ROBERT B. BROOKS, Consulting Engineer. SACRAMENTO RIVER, RED BLUFF TO CHICO LANDING Senator ELLENDER. I have received a letter from Senator Kuchel relative to the Sacramento River from Red Bluff to Chico Landing. Without objection that letter will be inserted in the record at this point. (The letter referred to follows:) U.S. SENATE, Hon. ALLEN J. ELLENDER, COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Chairman, Senate Public Works Subcommittee, May 8, 1959. DEAR SENATOR: At the time I was assembling data for my statement to your subcommittee in support of requests for appropriations for various California projects, my attention had not been directed to a critical situation on the Sacramento River which I believe warrants the earliest possible action by the Corps of Engineers to assist local interests in protecting much valuable property. The Congress last year acknowledged the importance of undertaking to stabilize this river in the area between Red Bluff and Chico Landing, a distance of some 53 miles, and authorized in Public Law 85-500 a project at a cost of $1,560,000. The work would include channel improvements and construction of bank protection. I am distressed at the failure of the Bureau of the Budget to include in the program for fiscal year 1960 any funds for initiating this urgent and highly desirable project. I therefore would like to support requests for an item of $50,000 for planning. I am informed that this figure is in accordance with the Corps of Engineers' capability. The importance of this undertaking is emphasized by the fact that for many years the Sacramento River has meandered in its course, continually eroding fertile areas and depositing material within its lower channel and flood plain. Many acres of valuable cultivated lands and orchards have been lost. Downstream deposits necessitate annual removals of 330,000 cubic yards at an average expenditure of $132,000. Both the losses of riverside land and the costly job of removal would be eliminated by the project contemplated in Public Law 85-500. The desirability of immediate planning arises from the possibility that the river at some locations will cut a new channel through developed lands. This is threatened at places where tributary streams approach the main stem and follow a parallel course for some distance before joining the river. I regard this situation, which is becoming progressively worse, as almost of emergency character, warranting a prompt start toward construction if heavy future losses are to be avoided. In view of these facts, I respectfully request consideration by the subcommittee of the $50,000 item which was recommended by the California State Water Commission and local witnesses at your recent hearing. With kind regards, I am THOMAS H. KUCHEL, U.S. Senator. MULTIPLE PURPOSE RIVER BASIN PROJECTS NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. ROBINSON, JR., STAFF ENGINEER; ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS VENABLES PREPARED STATEMENT Senator ELLENDER. Mr. Robinson, you may proceed. Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the subcommittee, my name is Charles A. Robinson, Jr. I am the staff engineer of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. We submitted, in accordance with the rules of the committee, a copy of a prepared statement a few days ago. Subsequent to its submittal, we discovered some typographical errors in it, and at this time, I ask that a statement revised to correct those errors be substituted for the original, and we hereby submit it. Senator ELLENDER. That will be done. (The statement referred to follows:) Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the subcommittee, my name is Charles A. Robinson, Jr., I am the staff engineer of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the national service organization of which approximately 92 percent of all REA financed rural electric systems throughout the United States are members. Some 450 rural electric systems, in 28 States, obtain wholesale electricity from Federal multiple-purpose reservoir projects the appropriations for a large number of which are recommended by this subcommittee. During fiscal 1958, the rural electric systems used 23.3 billion kilowatt-hours of electric energy. Of this 39.1 percent was purchased from investor-owned utility companies, and 39.1 percent, an equal amount was purchased from Federal agences, 14.4 percent was generated in REA financed plants, and 7.8 percent was purchased from local public bodies. The loads of the rural electric systems continue to grow very rapidly, and this growing demand must be supplied at low rates which the rural people can afford. Our people, therefore, have a tremendous stake in projects over which the subcommittee wields the appropriation control. MULTIPLE-PURPOSE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION The President's budget message states with respect to natural resources development: "To carry forward projects started in 1959 and earlier years will require some increases in appropriations for 1960. In view of this record program no funds are provided in the 1960 budget for starting construction of new water resources projects. Further, the budget contemplates stretching out construction on some projects underway where this can be done without stopping work on these projects. Other programs will be continued at or below current levels." The slowing down or stretching out of multiple-purpose project construction schedules can only cost the Government more money rather than less. Postponing the completion date of a multiple-purpose project postpones the return of revenue from the project, increases its unit construction costs and extends, in a period of rising costs, the time during which construction commitments must be executed. The stretched-out construction program embodied in the President's budget contemplates multiple-purpose construction schedules of from 7 to 14 years compared with the 3 to 6 year schedules adhered to by nonFederal agencies engaged in the same type of activity. Recommended increases for projects under construction Table A, attached hereto, contains our study of the construction status of multiple-purpose projects currently being built by the Corps of Engineers for which funds have been budgeted during fiscal 1960. The last column of this table indicates what we believe to be realistic appropriation recommendations for expeditious and economic construction scheduling of these projects during the coming fiscal year. Our recommendations agree in many cases with those of the budget. But where the effect of the "stretchout" appears to result in unrealistically long construction schedules, we have recommended substantially higher amounts. We hope very much that this subcommittee will give serious consideration to at least a portion of the increases we suggest and will reject uneconomic slow down and stretchout policies as they affect the Federal water resource construction program. Recommended new starts This is the seventh consecutive year, according to our records, in which the Bureau of the Budget has rejected new starts on Corps of Engineers multiplepurpose projects. Moreover, it is apparent from table A attached, to which we have referred previously, that much of the funds added to the public works appropriation bills by Congress for new starts over the past few years have not been spent. This is especially true with respect to the John Day lock and dam, the Eufaula Reservoir, and the Dardanelle lock and dam. In each of these cases, only a fraction of the funds which have been approved by Congress for construction of these projects has been expended. This is, of course, a disheartening situation to the rural electric systems who depend upon these Federal projects for their wholesale power supply, but even more so to the friends of the rural electrification program in Congress who have managed to add a few projects to the public works appropriation bills during the past several years only to see their efforts turned aside by the Bureau of the Budget. We hope, however, that Congress will, again this year, see fit to provide the Corps of Engineers with funds for beginning a few nonbudgeted multiple-purpose projects. We think there are two which are especially meritorious and warrant consideration by the subcommittee. They are: 1. Beaver Reservoir, White River, Ark. This is not really a new start. It is authorized for flood control and power by the Flood Control Act of 1954, and was, at that time, recommended for construction by the Corps of Engineers even after reevaluation in accordance with the very strict standards imposed upon such projects by Budget Bureau Circular A-47. Last year, the Congress appropriated $250,000 to complete planning of the Beaver Reservoir and $500,000 to initiate construction on it. We are reliably informed that none of the $500,000 initial construction appropriation has been spent. No funds are budgeted for construction on it during fiscal 1960. The reason given for not requesting such funds is that the Department of Interior had, at the time of preparing the 1960 budget, not yet completed its studies to determine whether power revenue could repay its costs. We understand, however, that the Department of the Interior has now concluded that the power from Beaver Reservoir can be economically marketed and that a representative of the Department has so informed this subcommittee. In view of this development, we respectfully urge that additional funds up to $2 million be appropriated for initiation of construction on the Beaver Reservoir during fiscal 1960. The rural electric systems in the Arkansas-Louisiana-Texas-Oklahoma-Missouri area need additional Federal hydro to achieve and preserve a reasonable wholesale power rate situation. 2. Green Peter Reservoir, Oreg., Santiam River.-This is an 81,000 kilowatt project authorized by Congress for Corps of Engineers construction. Its output would be marketed by the Bonneville Power Administration. Planning is completed, and we suggest an initial construction of $2.5 million for work during fiscal 1960. PLANNING FUNDS Multiple purpose projects.—We are informed that the Corps of Engineers has requested the following planning funds for multiple-purpose projects including power: Bruces Eddy, Idaho (240,000 kilowatts). $700,000 150,000 Lower Monumental lock and dam, Washington (270,000 kilowatts)---- 800,000 These funds we are told will assure the completion of planning on Bruces Eddy and Lower Monumental during fiscal 1960, and will bring the planning on the Stockton Reservoir to 33 percent complete in 1960. We wish to support each of these items, and urge appropriation of the full amount requested. On April 24, 1959, the Senate Committee on Public Works adopted a resolution directing the Corps of Engineers to study and determine the advisability of developing, for hydroelectric power and other purposes, the Rampart Canyon site on the Yukon River in Alaska. Preliminary reconnaissance studies indicate a potential of 5 million kilowatts of hydroelectric potential at Rampart Canyon together with 1.5 billion acre-feet of reservoir storage capacity. This would indicate the possibility of developing the largest hydro plant in the free world; and one which would produce energy at approximately 2 mills per kilowatt-hour according to preliminary information available to us. Total cost of the proposed study is estimated at $1 million. We suggest a fiscal year 1960 appropriation of $100,000 to begin it. Potomac River survey.-The Corps of Engineers has requested $490,000 to continue during fiscal 1960, its comprehensive multiple-purpose study of the Potomac River Basin with special emphasis on water supply, pollution abatement, and flood control. The ultimate cost of this study is estimated at approximately $1.6 million, of which $548,500 has already been expended. |