proposed under Public Law 566 as now written; and second, the expansion and liberalization of that law which is now under consideration. Under the requirements for coordination with watershed programs we have received a large number of reports for comment. The nature of these places us in a very difficult position. They envision Federal cooperation in land drainage; the undertaking of local programs of small dams which is extrapolated to an entire river basin would profoundly change its hydrologic characteristics with results difficult to predict and largely unknown; and in some cases flood protection of urban areas. They present a system of cost sharing which varies widely between watersheds and within watersheds, and is based essentially on ability of local interests to pay. As a result we find it difficult to endorse these structural programs, or achieve any real degree of coordination. On top of this already difficult situation there are a number of bills now before the Congress which would provide for expansion and liberalization of the Federal public works program that can be undertaken under Public Law 566. These bills would expand the scope of the law so that works not only for flood control, but also for irrigation, drainage, water supply, and other purposes can be undertaken. All limitations as to size of works and their relationship to agricultural programs are removed. They contemplate an additional public works program-pure and simple, and will make coordination even more difficult. CONCLUSION In conclusion, I would like to express to this committee my deep appreciation for its favorable consideration of the civil works program during the period in which I have served as Chief of Engineers. You have provided funds for revitalizing and accelerating the work. We, in turn, have tried and are trying to administer it honestly and efficiently. The workload, which I have stressed, is heavy, but our satisfaction in accomplishment of the work is great because we feel that this program contributes soundly to the development of our water resources and to the maintenance of our national strength. Gentlemen, that concludes the Chief's statement. COMMITTEE ACTION ON GENERAL EXPENSES Mr. CANNON. I note, General Itschner, that you consider the action of this committee in fixing the amount of appropriations for general expenses as unfortunate. It seems to me that is rather an unfortunate statement. Might you not by the same line of reasoning have concluded that the action of this committee in increasing in a very material way the number of projects for which appropriations were made. was unfortunate? General ITSCHNER. No, sir. We felt that the only unfortunate feature of it was the lack of balance between general expense funds and the total program. We feel there should be a certain ratio of general expense funds that should be maintained regardless of the amounts that are added or subtracted by the committees. Mr. CANNON. I think the choice of phraseology here is rather fortunate. INADEQUACY OF OFFICE SPACE I wonder also why you complain to this committee about the conon and location of your offices? You emphasize that in your atement when this committee has absolutely nothing to do with office accommodations which are supplied you. General ITSCHNER. We appreciate that, sir. The Chief of Engineers s to go on record as frequently as he can on the inadequacy of our He realizes, of course, that this committee is not directly cerned with that phase of our problem. Mr. CANNON. It would be more effective if you would take it up th the officials who are in a position to remedy the situation. SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET ESTIMATE Since the Bureau of the Budget has just sent to us a very lengthy plemental estimate which adds quite a number of items to the of 330 projects that were in the President's budget and since me of the justification material is currently being received, these ent changes will be taken up in the course of the committee's lar hearings. We will insert the pertinent portion of House Document 379 at this point. The matter referred to follows:) [H. Doc. 379] DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-CIVIL FUNCTIONS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY RIVERS AND HARBORS AND FLOOD CONTROL The 1957 budget contemplated that when the project for deepening and imvement of the Great Lakes connecting channels was authorized by the Congress, Supplemental appropriation would be recommended to initiate the work. project has now been authorized by Public Law 434, approved March 21, , and it has been determined that $4 million is necessary in fiscal year 1957 nitiate the improvement of these important national arteries of commerce. In addition, a recent appraisal of the entire 1957 construction program of the ps of Engineers reveals the need to make further adjustments in that program. e adjustments, as outlined below, require additional amounts totaling 1.912,000 for (a) initiation of construction of 14 new projects, (b) increased rements for 10 going projects and for emergency bank-protection work, and repayment of advances or investments made by local interests in connection authorized navigation and flood-control projects. However, these additional rements, which, including the Great Lakes connecting channels, total 912,000, can be financed within the total amount recommended for "Contion, general" in the 1957 budget. This is possible because reductions in an amount have resulted from savings realized from favorable contract bids dunforeseen delays in construction progress. (e) Guadalupe River, channel to Victoria (side channel to Seadrift), Tex.... To initiate construction of 7 authorized rivers and harbors projects and authorized flood-control projects, $4,822,000 would be applied as follows: (a) San Joaquin River (Stockton Channel), Calif. (bank protection only) Removal of West Basin Bridge, Los Angeles Harbor, Calif. (c) St. Petersburg Harbor (Bayboro Harbor and Salt Creek), Fla... (d) Weymouth Fore River, Mass. $450,0 245, 0 22,0 500,0 110,0 (f) Sabine-Neches Waterway (channel to Beaumont), Tex.. (g) Shilshole Bay, Wash... (h) Sacramento River, major and minor tributaries (Deer Creek and Little Chico-Butte Creek units), California. (i) San Lorenzo River, Calif.. Mansfield Reservoir, Ind.. (k) Upper Iowa River, Iowa.. (1) Pomme de Terre Reservoir, Mo. 695,0 300, 250,0 100, 500, 500, 500, 250, 400, 4,822, Additional amounts totaling $6,900,000 would be applied to 10 going proje and to emergency bank-protection work throughout the country as indica below. For eight of these projects, the amount to be applied will permit com tion of the project or a major segment of the project. (d) Portsmouth Harbor, N. H., and Piscataqua River, N. H., and Maine.. 175, (e) Wilmington Harbor, N. C.. 413 (f) Channel, Port Royal Sound to Beaufort, S. C. Norfolk Harbor (Craney Island disposal area), Va. The amount of $10,190,000 is needed to repay the outstanding indebtedne the United States for advances received from and investments made by interests in connection with navigation and flood-control projects. This am would be applied to the projects and in the amounts listed below: (a) Sacramento River deepwater channel, California... (b) Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbors, Calif_ (c) Central and southern Florida_... (d) Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Franklin Canal, La.. I recommend that the foregoing amendments and proposed revisions be mitted to the Congress. Respectfully yours, PERCIVAL BRUNDAGE Director of the Bureau of the Bu PROGLAN SLIPP. BE AN7 XO KN Mr. CANON. This estimate that has İster, Dicates that you have been she 2 gÅ XÃ à General ITSCHNER. That is correct, Mr. Castman Mr. CANNON. And according to the previou8 MONEY INOF, Aah are an additional $4 million. So you have been able to msks w get which was received on February 21, you have Not 30 gether, savings of approximately $30 million through po age and savings. What do you estimate you can save in ado aal funds by the end of the fiscal year? General ITSCHNER. At the time, sir, wo reported the latest £700,000-odd to the budget, we felt that was all we would be able re by the end of the fiscal year. M. CANNON. You have been able to save $25,912,000, and in ection with the previous amendment you saved $3,990,000, so rend figures that is $30 million? General ITSCHNER. Yes, sir. WE CANNON. What additional funds do you think you would be Tud have reported then it the Burg: V tered the intest £21, w Sabine-Neches Waterway (channel to Beaumont), Tex. Sacramento River, major and minor tributaries (Deer Creek and To initiate construction of 7 authorized rivers and harbors projects and authorized flood-control projects, $4,822,000 would be applied as follows: (a) San Joaquin River (Stockton Channel), Calif. (bank protection (b) Removal of West Basin Bridge, Los Angeles Harbor, Calif Guadalupe River, channel to Victoria (side channel to Seadrift), Shilshole Bay, Wash... $450, OC 245, 00 22, 00 500, 00 110,00 695, 00 300, 00 Little Chico-Butte Creek units), California_ 250, 00 Additional amounts totaling $6,900,000 would be applied to 10 going projects and to emergency bank-protection work throughout the country as indicatec below. For eight of these projects, the amount to be applied will permit comple tion of the project or a major segment of the project. (a) Mobile Harbor, Ala... (b) Richmond Harbor, Calif.. (c) Mystic River, Mass... (d) Portsmouth Harbor, N. H., and Piscataqua River, N. H., and Maine.... Wilmington Harbor, N. C.. (f) Channel, Port Royal Sound to Beaufort, S. C.. Buford Dam, Ga.... (k) Emergency bank protection... Total. The amount of $10,190,000 is needed to repay the outstanding indebtedness of the United States for advances received from and investments made by local interests in connection with navigation and flood-control projects. would be applied to the projects and in the amounts listed below: (a) Sacramento River deepwater channel, California.. (b) Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbors, Calif.. (c) Central and southern Florida.. (d) Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Franklin Canal, La.. (e) Jones Inlet, N. Y. (f) Great Lakes-Hudson River Waterway, N. Y. (g) Muskingum River Reservoirs, Ohio. (h) Buffalo Bayou, Tex.. Brays Bayou, Tex... Total repayments.---. This amount $200,000 485, 000 2, 900, 000 35, 000 1, 470, 000 275,000 425,000 2, 900, 000 1, 500, 000 10, 190, 000 I recommend that the foregoing amendments and proposed revisions be trans mitted to the Congress. Respectfully yours, PERCIVAL BRUNDAGE Director of the Bureau of the Budget. |