This was done purely for the benefit of the United States Steel Corp. in order that iron ore from foreign countries could be brought to its Fairless Works by ship. The steel company was justly entitled to this service, however, as it had a right to assume that the authorized depth of 25 feet would be available for its transportation needs. Deeper channel not justified as a public works: It is noteworthy that the St. Lawrence seaway, the most important waterway project ever undertaken in this country, designed to open up the entire Great Lakes region to world commerce, is to have a controlling depth of 27 feet. We already have in the upper Delaware, at the higher stages of the tide, a greater depth of water than the St. Lawrence seaway is to provide. And this depth is sufficient to permit the passage of vessels of a size and type which carry the major portion of the world's com merce. In order to establish the importance of recognizing the presently authorized 25-foot channel in the upper Delaware as economically sound and an entirely adequate channel for the proper development and industrial expansion of the area, a close comparison of the upper Delaware River project with the St. Lawrence seaway provides a scoreboard of tremendous value to measure the use and benefits of projects made possible by the use of public funds. The following basic factors are worthy of careful evaluation: Cost of projects: St. Lawrence seaway, $105 million. Upper Delaware, $91 million plus. Depth of project, St. Lawrence seaway, 27 feet. Upper Delaware, 25 feet, with 6 feet rise of tide. Anticipated tonnage of shipping: St. Lawrence seaway, 50 million tons, 1959. Upper Delaware, 14,810,000 tons (50 year average). Areas of benefits: St. Lawrence seaway, 17 inland cities transformed into seaports for world commerce. Upper Delaware: United States Steel, 13,030,000 tons. Others, 1,780,000 tons. Sums to be spent by industry and cities in anticipation of project: St. Lawrence seaway, approximately $1 billion; upper Delaware, not one commitment, outside of United States Steel. The above facts are inescapable and show the deeper channel in the upper Delaware to pale into insignaficance in comparison with the costs, benefits, and future potential of the St. Lawrence seaway. It throws such a bold light of economic facts on the project that the deeper channel is clearly evident as an unreasonable demand for public funds-it is not a justified public works project but constitutes an out and out subsidy to United States Steel Corp. A justifiable public works project, for which the taxpayers of the entire Nation are forced to pay, should be one which would bring benefits over a wide territory and to a large segment of our populace. This requirement is certainly not fulfilled by the upper Delaware River project which could benefit only a relative few, localized in one small area. Even if local interests agree to pay the $18 million proposed by President Eisenhower's budget, the remaining $73 million Federal expenditure cannot be justified as a proper use of tax funds. Proposed channel a dead-end passage: The proposed channel is not a connecting link, for example, such as the St. Lawrence seaway or the Calumet-Sag Canal, opening up vast areas of the country to commerce. It is simply a deadend passage leading into one small locality for the special benefit of purely local interests. We believe that the use of public funds for such a purpose would be highly improper and not at all in conformity with the principles of democracy. If Government funds are appropriated for such a project as the upper Delaware River 40-foot channel, there is no logical reason why similar large grants should not be made to deepen many other rivers in the country where certain local interests feel they would be benefited. Forty-foot channel should be defeated: If our debt-ridden, deficit-plagued Federal Government is to be placed on a sound financial basis, the budget balanced and our currency saved from further ruinous inflation, such needless extravagances as the upper Delaware River 40-foot channel must be firmly ruled out. Mr. JONES. Dr. Harold W. Winkelspecht, right? Dr. WINKELSPECHT. H. J. Winkelspecht. That is a hard one. Dr. WINKELSPECHT. You did very well. people. You did better than most STATEMENT OF DR. HAROLD J. WINKELSPECHT, DIRECTOR, DELAWARE RIVER VALLEY ASSOCIATION Dr. WINKELSPECHT. Mr. Chairman, I am here to testify in behalf of the Delaware River Valley Association, the same as Mayor Becton, and to support the task force committee report as found on page 1363: The Delaware River, Philadelphia to Trenton. Mr. WISE. Will you please tell the reporter where you are from? Dr. WINKELSPECHT. Delanco, N. J. I am going to testify from two aspects: One is in regard to the Delaware River Channel, as mentioned in the task-force report, and in which we concur 100 percent with their findings, and then I have separate testimony in regard to the effect of the Delaware River Channel on the river and another aspect of the flood that has not been considered. When speaking of the upper Delaware River, we mean the Delaware River above Philadelphia, but below Trenton. In all the previous testimony in regard to the channel, we divided the river into the lower and the upper Delaware in regard to the port of Philadelphia. Above Philadelphia, we call the upper. The area up where we are now is what we consider the tributaries or the origin of the Delaware River. Nevertheless, we of the Delaware River Valley Association present the following facts to demonstrate that there is no need for a 40-foot channel in the upper Delaware River above Philadelphia. The Congress of the United States authorized the deepening of the Delaware River to 40 feet up to the United States Steel plant and to 35 feet from there to Trenton. This approval was obtained through the use of many half-truths and it is time that a reevaluation is made based on the actual facts concerning this whole project and this report is to summarize some of the points that need to be studied. What is the purpose of a 40-foot channel? The proponents say: For United States Steel Co., so it can function more efficiently through use of 40,000-ton seagoing vessels. Senator Duff, as first witness before the Senate hearing on S. 2317 last year stated: It seems to me that the deepening of this river at this place in order to afford seagoing vessels an opportunity to go right up to the place where the plants are located is a matter of extreme importance for the welfare of the whole country and is a matter of national defense. This statement along with many others of similar nature from all proponents of the 40-foot channel imply, and even actually state, that the United States Steel Co. cannot get ore direct to its Fairless plant without the deeper river. In fact, the calculation of benefits by the United States engineers is explained as follows by Colonel Milne at the hearing on S. 2317: There are two methods by which iron ore could move from Philadelphia to the Fairless Works, other than by deep-draft vessels. One method would be to complete unloading of ore carriers in Philadelphia and transport the ore by rail to the works. A second method would be to unload the heavy ore carriers and transport the ore by barge. Now, here are the facts: The United States Steel plant at Morrisville is now operating at full capacity with ore received directly at their plant by oceangoing vessels. In fact, they can and have received enough ore direct by these oceangoing vessels to take care of a plant two times its present size. The extra ore not being used now, is either stockpiled in big hills of ore or is being reshipped in huge quantities—thousands by carload—by rail to plants in the Pittsburgh area. Now, I also want to submit to you pictures of the vessels that are using this present channel. I have the pictures of the boats and I want you to look at those boats and you will see that they are cargocarrying vessels. They are not barges as we are led to believe by some of the proponents of the channel. The proponents also say that the 40-foot channel in the Delaware River to United States Steel plant and 35-foot channel to Trenton, for oceangoing vessels, will greatly assist the national defense and will aid growth and expansion urgently needed in this great diversified production area. Mr. LaBrum in his testimony at the hearing on S. 2317 stated that the reason for the low state of industrial development between Philadelphia and Trenton is inability of oceangoing vessels to navigate the river between these points where large areas of land are either vacant or devoted to less productive use and thereby excluded from consideration by major industries which require a 40-foot channel. Mr. LaBrum also stated: When the channel is deepened we can expect at least two more steel companies to come into the Greater Philadelphia area, one in Burlington County on the New Jersey side where the land is already under option and another in G'oucester County on the New Jersey side where the land has already been purchased. The United States engineers state: There is considerable evidence from credible sources that a number of large concerns are planning to move or establish plants on the Delaware River in this upper reach, if and when the deeper channel is available, but who are unwilling for business reasons to reveal their plans at this time. Now, they list a few of the names that they say are going to locate here: the Gulf Oil Co., the Scott Paper Co., Sun Oil, Philadelphia Coke, Atlantic Refining, and 11 more nonoil or chemical companies. Now, here are the facts: In the 4 or 5 years since it was known that United States Steel was locating its big Fairless plant at Morrisville, not 1 industry has located on the upper Delaware River area. Surely some of the hundreds of industries due to move in could get along with a 25-foot channel, so why are they waiting for a 40-foot channel? Could it be that there just is not room for major industrial development now that tens of thousands of Philadelphians and other thousands from Trenton have moved into Lower Bucks County to live? In other words, our contention is that in order for an industry to use 40-foot draft vessels, they must be a type of industry that hauls bulk cargo or bulk raw material. To use bulk raw material it takes a plant of a large area similar to the United States Fairless works, which is 3,900 acres. Mr. JONES. Doctor, let me ask you a question. I do not know whether you are familiar with the project or not, but on the Saint Mary stream down in Georgia we authorized a project to serve a paper company down there, and that paper company-and the Corps of Engineers would reject the project-Meriwether, I believe it is-rejected it on the ground that the paper and the bulk wood to be hauled to that project or moved by water to the project would only serve that company, and required a local participation or participation by the company. Dr. WINKELSPECHT. Yes. Mr. JONES. Do you think that that should be required in the Delaware navigation? Dr. WINKELSPECHT. That is exactly what the engineers have asked here. The engineers have stated this is not in my report, and it goes on and brings that out, where for industrial development only a 35-foot channel would be needed and the 40-foot channel, the extra 5 feet is solely for the use of United States Steel, and that extra 5 feet would cost an additional $36 million. It would be, they claim, $91 million totally. It would be $55 million for the 35-foot channel, $36 million for the additional 5 feet which would be solely for the use of United States Steel, so therefore they have asked if it is built, if it is built to 40 feet, United States Steel contribute one-half of the cost of that additional 5 feet, which amounts to $18 million. And that, of course, was in all of the bills until the very end of Congress .when President Eisenhower gave his approval to withdraw that $18 million contribution, and it is not clear from the statement that he makes whether it was a temporary withdrawal to start the project or whether it is to be a permanent withdrawal. But the Army engineers request a participation in this project, the same as is mentioned in their project. Mr. PITKIN. Mr. President, could I ask one question? Is it true that the ships going to United States Steel lighten half their cargo in Philadelphia and send the half empty ship up? Mr. JONES. Are you directing the question to the doctor? Mr. PITKIN. I would like to direct the question to the doctor. Dr. WINKELSPECHT. As far as I know, they come not fully loaded. In the paper, the report that you see of arrival of shipping-they are destined to Fairless steel plant-and it does not say anything about a stopover at Philadelphia, where, of course, they would stop if they were unloading ore, part of it. Now, there are the pictures of the boats. You understand that the Army engineers have based their calculations on the use of barges and rail transportation and naturally these larger boats can haul ore much cheaper than a barge or than by rail, and we feel that it should be reevaluated on the basis of what they are presently using, and it will not establish a ratio which is favorable to the expenditure of much money. Mr. JONES. I do not know whether you were here this morning or not. Dr. WINKELSPECHT. No, I was not. Mr. JONES. But Congressman Lipscomb pointed out to another witness that we do not have jurisdiction over the modification of their projects. We are interested particularly in your reference to the Hoover Commission report. Dr. WINKELSPECHT. Yes. Mr. JONES. So there is nothing we can do about Dr. WINKELSPECHT. No. Mr. JONES. The authorized project. It is one now that is already authorized. We understand it is only authorized. The appropriation has not been made. I understand it is before the Appropriations 1 Committee, but neither of us is a member of the Appropriations Committee. Dr. WINKELSPECHT. I understand. Our testimony supports the report of the task force committee; that is the reason I thought it would be pertinent for you to hear. Mr. JONES. It certainly is pertinent. Dr. WINKELSPECHT. There are at the present time 50,000 homes along the Pennsylvania side of the river alone within 7 miles of its 10 miles reach from Philadelphia city line to Warner's Sand Pits and the U. S. Steel plant, and only recently William Levitt has started building houses--you have heard of Levittown, Pa.-on a 280-acre tract of land that he has reserved for industrial use, but could not find a buyer. In other words, what I am trying to bring out is that the picture is painted that other industries are going to move into the area. The industries have not moved in, as we stated they do not all need a 40-foot channel, and the land is not available for large industries that require the handling of bulk cargoes as would be required from a 40-foot-draft boat. As to the two companies-what I am bringing out is that the testimony already has been half-truths. As to the two steel companies Mr. LaBrum refers to, why does he bring in an area below Philadelphia when we are talking about a deeper river above Philadelphia? He mentioned Gloucester Steel plant that would use this 40-foot channel. Gloucester County is already on the Delaware River opposite the Philadelphia Navy Yard, which is on the present 40-foot channel. In other words, the 1 steel company which is mentioned already has a 40-foot channel. The only other available large area left, as Mayor Becton showed us, is approximately 1,000 acres, and that would be only one-fourth as large as United States Steel. Now, the task force goes into the costs and benefits. We have analyzed that. Would you be interested in hearing that part as to the total cost? Mr. JONES. Yes; it sets it out in the report. Dr. WINKELSPECHT. Yes, it does, and it shows a benefit ratio finally; every time there is testimony, the benefit ratio seems to go up by modifying the report. In a similar way to the way the task force reports on the other projects. The benefits by the Army engineers seem to go up and the costs seem to go down, and then, as on the Missouri River, or the upper Mississippi, when the plan or when the project is undertaken, it usually costs two and a half times as much and they find that only about half the benefits are accrued as were stated would be accrued. Mr. JONES. Let me ask you this: You say that the prices have gone up about two-and-a-half times and you referred to the Missouri projects. Do you have anything specific in mind, specific project? Dr. WINKELSPECHT. Yes. In the task force report they quote the findings of a committee of the House of Representatives that were made to study that on Mr. JONES. I happen to be chairman of that subcommittee. Dr. WINKELSPECHT. You are? Well, you found that out, then, that the costs went up two-and-a-half times, and in the Missouri River |