Statement showing the proposed application of funds included in the Budget estimate of $43,773,050 for maintenance during the fiscal year 1941 of river and harbor projects-Continued Statement showing the proposed application of funds included in the Budget estimate of $43,773,050 for maintenance during the fiscal year 1941 of river and harbor projects-Continued Amounts that can be profitably expended during the fiscal year 1941 for new work on river and harbor projects Arecibo Harbor, P. R. St. Thomas Harbor, V. I.......... Delaware River, Philadelphia to the sea Inland Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Del. and Md... St. Jones River, Del__ Harbor of Refuge, Delaware Bay, Del. 10 11 Oldmans Creek, N. J.. Crisfield Harbor, Md.. Fishing Creek, Md.. Washington Harbor, D. C.. Potomac River water front, District of Columbia_ Mattaponi River, Va... 65, 000 88, 800 James River, Va... Congaree River, S. C. Intracoastal Waterway from Jacksonville to Miami, Fla_ Palm Beach, Fla., side channel and basin... Caloosahatchee River and Lake Okeechobee drainage areas, Pearl River, Miss. and La__. Southwest Pass and South Pass, Mississippi River, La Bayou Lafourche, La. Calcasieu River and Pass, La Christi section _ _ _ Sabine-Neches Waterway, Tex. Louisiana-Texas Intracoastal Waterway, Sabine River-Corpus Houston Ship Channel, Tex.. Ouachita and Black Rivers, Ark. and La Mississippi River between the Ghio and Missouri Rivers.. Mississippi River between Missouri River and Minneapolis Illinois Waterway, Ill.. Missouri River, mouth to Kansas City. Missouri River, Kansas City to Sioux City. 61, 000 Missouri River at Fort Peck: Navigation. Tennessee River, Tenn., Ala., and Ky. Allegheny River, Pa... Ohio River locks and dams_. 1, 000, 000 15, 587, 000 1, 359, 000 2, 225, 000 7, 450, 000 2, 173, 200 257, 000 220, 000 840, 000 1,250,000 300, 000 980, 000 300, 000 72, 600 440, 000 639, 000 35, 000 42, 700 180, 000 302, 000 Amounts that can be profitably expended during the fiscal year 1941 for new work on river and harbor projects-Continued Columbia River between Vancouver, Wash., and Bonneville, 894, 200 168, 250 Columbia River at Bonneville, Oreg.: Navigation. Columbia River and tributaries above Celilo Falls to mouth of Mr. NEWTON. Mr. Chairman, I have been testifying particularly in relation to navigation projects, but I want the committee to realize that the Mississippi Valley Association is wholeheartedly in favor of flood-control projects. I understand you have had a great deal of testimony regarding flood control and that there has not been a proportionate amount regarding the other forms of transportation. Senator THOMAS. Yes, sir; you are correct. Mr. NEWTON. And we think that the flood-control program of the Army engineers is sound and that it ought to go forward just as far as the Government feels that it can afford to do it, and as rapidly, because we think it is a great benefit and a great saving to have these flood-control projects taken care of. FREIGHT RATE SAVINGS There is just one thing here. As an indication of the freight-rate savings from the use of the river, I have a table showing rail rates from Omaha to representative destinations and water rates, based on 2 mills per ton-mile, which is the maximum rate now charged by water carriers. Rates for long hauls are generally lower. Omaha to St. Louis are two of the points where the present rail rate is 14 cents per hundred pounds, while the river rate based on the 2-mill maximum, is 6 cents per hundred pounds. The saving per hundred pounds is 8 cents, which is a little less than 2 bushels. From Omaha to Chicago, where the freight goes down the Mississippi River and up to Illinois, the rail rate per hundred pounds is 16 cents and the water rate is 10 cents. To Memphis, going down the Missouri and the Mississippi, the rail rate is 25.5 cents and the water rate is 10 cents for the distance per hundred pounds, and the saving is 15.5 cents per hundred pounds. Now, from Omaha to New Orleans, the rail rate is 38 cents per hundred pounds and the water rate is 17.5 cents per hundred pounds. 216797-40--14 The saving is 20.5 cents per hundred pounds, which means, on 60 pounds to the bushel, a very considerable saving. Now from Omaha to Pittsburgh, the rail rate is 36 cents per hundred pounds and the river rate is 18 cents. The saving is 18 cents per hundred pounds. INCREASED INCOME TO FARMERS The increased income to the farmers is at least $6,000,000 annually and probably it will run higher than that. The limiting factor will be, for some years to come at least, the number of barges which will be available to haul the grain. The channel has already been improved in the Missouri River as far as Omaha, with the exception of the extra work that is needed down at the lower end of the Missouri. And the Fort Peck Dam will be in operation, if it is carried on, in 1940, and the Army engineers have estimated that the channel depth, which is 8 to 9 feet all the way from Omaha to the mouth will be available. There is every prospect that the grain movement from the upper river points will start in 1940. Now, somewhere we have data regarding grain from the upper Mississippi to lower California. They have been able to send a lot of grain from the upper Mississippi, from Iowa and other States, down the Mississippi and through the Canal to southern California in competition with grain from South America, and this has been a great saving or a great benefit to the farmers, and I think it has been generally agreed from the evidence we have been able to get. Here is a statement from a big grain elevator man in Muscatine, Iowa-L. R. McKee-in which he says [reading]: It has been said the producer and consumer do not gain from cheap river transportation. I have lived in Muscatine for about 30 years and have been in the grain business here for about 25 years, and own and operate an elevator at this point on the river. Last year several million bushels of corn were shipped south and the farmers in the vicinity of Muscatine were paid from 3 to 6 cents per bushel more for their corn than they possibly could have received if shipped by rail. It permitted also the consumer of this grain in the South to buy his grain cheaper, thus a saving was effected both ways. Mr. NEWTON. Of course, we want to make it perfectly clear that we are just as deeply concerned about flood control and the carrying on of that program, according to the judgment of the Army engineers, as we are about the other water problems. Now, I think generally that is about all I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman. Senator THOMAS. We thank you, Mr. Newton, for your testimony. THE PANAMA CANAL STATEMENT OF CHARLES I. STENGLE, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES IN CANAL ZONE Mr. STENGLE. For the purposes of your record, my name is Charles I. Stengle, representing the American Federation of Government Employees. I am very happy to say, Mr. Chairman, that I come here this morning asking for very little time and no money, I suppose, before an Appropriations Committee. |