Bob, this is the first time and the last time I suppose that you and I will ever be able to sit in a Federal courtroom. It must be grand to have a lifetime job where you know you can sit there as long as you behave yourself and you stay in good health, and where you do not have to run every other year for office. I started to ask you to strike that from the record. Colonel Kittrell, I will ask you to come around subject to the approval of the chairman. Mr. JONES. You are Colonel Clark Kittrell, representing the Shelby County Port Commission? STATEMENT OF CLARK KITTRELL, PORT DIRECTOR, MEMPHIS AND SHELBY COUNTY PORT COMMISSION Mr. KITTRELL. The Memphis and Shelby County Port Commission, Mr. Congressman. My name is Clark Kittrell and I am port director for the Memphis and Shelby County Port Commission. The statement which I will make is sanctioned by the individual members of the port commission who are prominent businessmen and civic leaders serving without compensation. We are particularly interested in the inland waterways of the United States and their complete development to the end that they may make their maximum contribution to the economic growth and stability of our great Nation. The tremendous growth of industry along the waterways is due principally to the availability of low-cost water transportation for bulk shipment. Outstanding examples of this expansion are the industrial cities along the Great Lakes, the west coast, the gulf coast, and in the Pittsburgh area. The creation of this huge wealth which is producing cargo for all modes of transportation is a great credit to the waterways. As you know the coal industry has been tremendously depressed. Just now it seems to be in the recuperative stage. Coal can compete with other forms of fuel only because of low-cost water transportation, and a sizable portion of inland waterborne commerce is made up of coal shipments. The margin of cost as between coal and other fuels is so small that imposition of user tolls would drive much of the coal off waterways and would have a very depressing effect upon the coal industry. The waterways belong to the people, because it is the taxpayer's money with which they are developed and maintained. The benefits from the full use of the waterways accrue to the public. You of the Congress are well aware that before a river and harbor project is approved by you there must be a positive showing, after complete surveys and studies, that the project will provide a favorable benefit-cost ratio. In other words you require reasonable proof that every tax dollar which you invest in the project will be returned with dividends. In the case of the navigable waters, the major part of these returns is in the form of freight savings. In most cases these savings have far exceeded what was predicted when you approved the expenditure. This is true because the records show that tonnages carried on our inland waterways have in most cases grown far beyond expectancy. The imposition of tolls or user charges on these waterways will not help the consumer, that is the taxpayer, because the carrier will add the charge to the freight cost. It would simply mean a transfer from one pocket to the other. If it stopped here it wouldn't be so bad, but actually the consumer will lose in the long run rather than gain. My reasoning is this and I am confident that it is sound. The imposition of tolls will discourage many shipments now being made by water, especially those where the rate differential between competing modes of transportation is small. The barge and towboat equipment which has been so long in the building will shrink and deteriorate and when, due to starvation it becomes impotent, the time is then ripe for an overall increase in freight rates. The consumer will inevitably pay the bill. This has happened before. It takes a long time and much capital, as history shows, for barge equipment to be built up to the point where the waterways can have a healthy effect upon the control of freight charges, as they now have. It is my firm conviction that the imposition of tolls upon our waterways will have a deteriorating effect upon them and upon the equipment, much of which is specialized. We need these waterways and the equipment in the best operating condition possible in case of a national emergency such as we recently experienced in World War II. Then, all forms of transportation were used to the maximum extent and did a remarkable job. Thousands of oceangoing vessels for the war were constructed at inland ports and floated to sea over our improved inland waterways. Let's let the people keep their inland waterways and continue to enjoy the low freight costs which they produce. I thank you for the privilege of appearing before you. Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Kittrell. Are there any questions? (No response.) Mr. JONES. Mr. Kittrell, I would like to ask you a question. What is the traffic index of the Memphis terminals? Mr. KITTRELL. The traffic in and out of Memphis at the present time is right around 32 million tons a year. Mr. JONES. What type of cargoes does it consist of? What are the principal items that make it up? Mr. KITTRELL. I do not have those figures with me but petroleum products are a large item of shipment. Mr. JONES. Where does that shipment originate? Mr. KITTRELL. Both ways, Mr. Chairman-from below and from above. There are refineries around East St. Louis. That is shipped down here. Then the Texas and Louisiana refineries ship up here. It is shipped both ways. Mr. JONES. What other products besides oil are shipped? Mr. KITTRELL. Coal is coming back on the river. There will be a tremendous coal shipment into this area when the generating plant is built by the city of Memphis. It will go way up into the millions of tons. Mr. JONES. Where will that shipment of coal originate? In Kentucky? Mr. KITTRELL. I expect a large percentage of it will come out of Kentucky. The Federal Government at the present time, as you well know, is opening up the Green River to coal shipments by barge, and then as soon as those improvements are completed a large shipment will come out of Green River, Ky., area. Yes. Mr. JONES. And part of that shipment will come down the Ohio River? Mr. KITTRELL. Yes, sir, a great percentage of it. The Ohio River is a heavy coal-carrying stream as you know. Mr. JONES. Do you recall the recommendations made by the Hoover Commission for collecting tolls based on the maintenance and operation costs? Have you explored what the cost of the maintenance and operation of the navigation features would be on the Mississippi River, for instance? Mr. KITTRELL. No, I have not, Mr. Congressman. Those figures, of course, are of record in the Corps of Engineers report. I have some figures here on the cost of amortization, and maintenance, and operation of several navigable waterways as compared to the freight savings. Mr. JONES. You do not have any figures that would reveal on the basis of maintenance and operation alone what it would cost per tonmile of increase in the cost of transportation on the Mississippi River and tributaries, do you? Mr. KITTRELL. No, I do not. I think it would be very complicated to determine that from the maintenance figures because maintenance varies in different portions of the stream. For instance, the operating costs on the upper river would be much more than the lower Mississippi because of the locks and dams. Mr. JONES. The Hoover Commission in its recommendations did not try to formulate any scheme for fixing the rates based on maintenance and operation, did they? Do you recall that portion of the report? Mr. KITTRELL. As far as I know, no, sir. They did not attempt to formulate any rule for fixing it. Mr. JONES. Do you think it would be a pretty difficult matter to try to estimate or calculate the cost that would be charged if tolls were imposed, based on the maintenance and operations costs? Mr. KITTRELL. I should think, Mr. Congressman, it would be a question of getting from the Corps of Engineers the costs of maintenance for any section which you might wish. Then with that figure and the figure of the tonnage handled, you could apply that cost to the tonnage and come up with a ton-mile figure. Mr. JONES. But you have a different rate for every stream leading into the Ohio where you have some old locks. The cost of operation and maintenance of those locks is much higher than it is with the new ones. Therefore you would have a different rate based on the maintenance and operation of the project on the Ohio River than you would probably on the upper Mississippi, the Tennessee, the lower Mississippi. Mr. KITTRELL. Yes, sir. Or the Gulf Intracoastal Canal which carries a huge amount of tonnage. Mr. JONES. Any further questions? (No response.) Mr. JONES. Thank you very much Colonel Kittrell. Mr. DAVIS. Will you be kind enough, Colonel Kittrell, with the chairman's approval, to introduce the other witnesses from Memphis? Mr. JONES. Yes, sir. Colonel, I will tell you what would be best for the committee. If we could have General Hardin testify about the overall program of the Corps of Engineers on the river that would give us a better picture of the situation and then we can come back to witnesses and I think that will fit into the pattern of the development of the picture. Mr. KITTRELL. That would suit me better, Mr. Congressman, because one of our witnesses from St. Louis is not here at the moment. Mr. DAVIS. I was not sure General Hardin was going to make a statement. Otherwise we would have put him out there in front of the firing line. Mr. JONES. General Hardin, it is good to see you. I want to echo the things Mr. Davis said about you. I have had occasion to be with the general and to hear his testimony on prior occasions and I know that no one is better equipped to give us the story of the lower Mississippi than you are, General. Mr. DAVIS. He does not throw any words away but he knows all the words to use. STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. JOHN R. HARDIN, UNITED STATES ARMY, DIVISION ENGINEER, LOWER MISSISSIPPI VALLEY DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AND PRESIDENT, MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION General HARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I am Brig. Gen. John R. Hardin, division engineer, lower Mississippi Valley division, Corps of Engineers, and president of the Mississippi River Commission. Mr. JONES. General, you might explain to the committee, as they probably have not had the opportunity to know it, just what the Mississippi River Commission is. General HARDIN. Mr. Chairman, the Mississippi River Commission is a planning and policy-making group which is appointed by the President for the prosecution of the Mississippi River and tributaries project which covers the area of the alluvial valley of the Mississippi River and extends from Cape Girardeau on the north to the Gulf of Mexico, and east and west to take in the valley which has been built by the Mississippi River extending up the tributaries insofar as they are affected by the flood waters of the Mississippi River. The Mississippi River Commission consists of a combination of civilians and personnel of the Corps of Engineers. Two of the members of the commission are civilian engineers; one is a businessman, generally; and, another member is the representative of the Coast and Geodetic Survey. It also consists of three members of the Corps of Engineers, the senior of whom is the president. This is the form that has been in existence since 1879 when the commission was authorized by Congress. It has the responsibility, as I said, of providing the guidance and general direction, the recommendations on policies and the recommendations concerning the program and the carrying out of the program for the Mississippi Valley. Of course we are all subject to the supervision of the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of the Army. Originally I think it is interesting to note that the Commission was appointed in those years when our Federal Government was primarily interested in the development of this basin from the standpoint of navi gation. At that time the Federal Government had not adopted any policy with respect to flood control. It was recognized, of course, from the outset that floods in this valley had a tremendous impact on the success or failure of providing a navigable channel on the Mississippi River. However for many years, going back to 1824 to be exact, the Federal Government participated in the improvement of the Mississippi River, from the early days, only from the standpoint of navigation. It was not until much later-the beginning of the 20th centurythat the attitude was taken of even sharing the cost of flood-control improvements. Then we got the disastrous flood of 1927 which occurred, devastating this entire valley. Two hundred people were drowned in that flood and there were $200 million in damages which was a conservative estimate in those days. The life and economy of the region was greatly affected not only locally, but it had an impact on the Nation in various ways, through transportation and otherwise. It was at that time that Congress first took the position of being the directors of a flood-control program in a river valley in this country. You might say then that the flood control and the navigation projects in the lower valley, which I have the honor to serve in, began in its present state in the Flood Control Act of 1928. It was the first comprehensive basin development in the country. Later the general floodcontrol acts which were passed by Congress in 1936 broadened the base and extended those policies and procedures to the entire country; but you might look upon the Mississippi River and tributaries project, under the Mississippi River Commission, as the point of beginning of national interest in flood control. Mr. JONES. The act of 1928 not only recognized the Mississippi River, but Federal responsibility to take on flood-control works for the relief of these disastrous floods everywhere else. General HARDIN. That is true. Mr. JONES. And as you say, the base was broadened in the 1936 act and even further in the 1944 act; was it not? General HARDIN. Yes, sir. Mr. JONES. So there is no question in anybody's mind today that the Federal Government does have a responsibility to aid and assist in seeing that these floods that bring about such devastation do not recur if it is possible to prevent them? Our policy is pretty well fixed with respect to that proposition, don't you think, General? General HARDIN. Yes, sir; I do. Certainly as far as this basin is concerned the policy has been well fixed by a succession of legislative statements and authorizations of one kind or another. This project has, of course, been modified and extended since its inception in 1928. It is still a living project, keeping pace with the economic and other types of development of this basin. As a matter of fact it is under review right now by direction of the Congress and we are working very hard to prepare a complete review of this comprehensive valley development for submission to the Congress at some time in the near future, or several years from now. Mr. JONES. I believe the latest authorization is the authorization which Mr. Davis had in the flood-control committee on the Atchafalaya this past year, or this year; was it not? Mr. DAVIS. That is right. This year. |