Page images
PDF
EPUB

business of the railroads and trucks who pay taxes no end-and the railroads keep up their rights-of-way and pay terrific taxes to every county and State in that great basin and the trucks pay big fees to use the highways-now, if this thing continues that is in progress now to give priority to nontax-paying bodies or groups, just where are we going to get our revenues one of these fine days from which we appropriate to build these waterways and these great dams?

You may say we will cross that bridge when we get to it. But it seems that the nontaxpayer is getting preference and has been getting preference at the hands of the Government for a lot of years past.

I certainly would recommend that the shipping companies who use the waterways be assessed a fair and reasonable fee for the use of these waterways.

Just what do they pay in port fees now?

What does it amount to?

What do these shipping companies and boats pay in ports, even in just port fees? Is it not a minor amount?

General HARDIN. No, sir, it is nothing.
Mr. JENSEN. Nothing?

General HARDIN. That is right.

Mr. JENSEN. They pay nothing at all?

General HARDIN. Not for the inland waterway movements, or even in our own ports. It has been historically the position of the Federal Government to keep the waterways open to all concerned, no charges having been levied ever since the days, as you well know better than I, of the Continental Congress, and it was conceived to be in the national interest to do this on account of the many States involved and the conflicts that would come from restrictions in the waterway movements that might reasonably be expected due to the many interests of States and local areas.

The wharfage charges, of course, that are involved in handling these inland waterway movements and in our ports, too, have to be paid by the shipper because the Federal Government does not put any of its money in any of the terminal facilities which must serve the ports and inland waterways. The local interests have to provide those. They generally do provide for a collection of wharfage charges in order to finance the cost of loading and unloading vessels. But the Federal Government's position historically has been to provide the access channel and the local interests to provide the harbor facilities, the transportation support, and various things that make this channel a usable navigation facility.

Mr. JENSEN. Maybe that was all right 175 years ago, but I think the time is long past due when the people that use the waterways, especially the inland waterways, that are developed with all the people's tax dollars should pay a reasonable license to use the waterways.

Of course, that is not your business, I recognize that. I am only trying to sort of evaluate the system that we have been using for these many years and I am wondering what is going to happen to the municipalities, to the counties, when they run the railroads out of business who pay great sums in taxes to every county and municipality in the whole United States. I am afraid sooner or later the American people are going to insist-I will not say I am afraid; I am hoping that in the very near future the American people will rise up and say "Now let us be fair with the railroads and the trucks, let us treat them equitably

76331-56- -36

as the Constitution of the United States provides, that every American shall be treated equitably." That is not just the words in the Constitution, but that is the meaning of the words.

With all the criticisms of the railroads, the trucks, they say our trucks are tearing up our highways, they are paying a pretty good fee for using the highways, and the railroads are paying a terrific amount of taxes to be permitted to run their trains to any town or county or State.

Here we have a great waterway transportation facility that pays just about exactly nothing for the use of the waterways. I hope we can make an adjustment in this whole transportation setup one of these fine days.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ANDERSON. I would like to go into this a few minutes more because I do feel we are discussing a basic issue. It is not an issue that the Army engineers have anything to say about. They must follow the law as set down by the Congress. But the practical part of the matter, Mr. Chairman, is this: We have here practically a completely navigation project embracing $88,500,000 on a comparatively small river system known as the Red River system. $88 million is a lot of money in my book, as it is in the book of the Army engineers. I know they watch their expenditures very carefully.

But as Mr. Jensen has brought out, on the basis of the overall general policy, and as Mr. Boland has touched upon, I personally question very much a project of this particular nature at this time, especially because it is off of the main stem of what we know as the inland waterways.

BENEFITS OF PROGRAM

General, what type of land is this 50,000 acres that is supposed to benefit by drainage and perhaps permit the development for agricultural purposes? What kind of land is that and where is it located on that map?

General HARDIN. It is located parallel to and right in the Red River bottoms.

Mr. ANDERSEN. In between Shreveport and the mouth of the Red River?

General HARDIN. Generally down to Alexandria and somewhat below Alexandria.

Mr. ANDERSEN. That land is woodland now; is that right? General HARDIN. No, sir; it is, I guess, as highly developed rich farmland as

Mr. ANDERSEN. It states 50,000 acres of low-lying woodland. General HARDIN. In this there would be some woodland and some low-lying lands which would get the benefit of that channel cutting which could come from the canal.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Going further in the basic economics of the whole. thing, why are we justified today in expending any money designed toward putting more land into production when we are faced with a great surplus in this United States of America right today? What I am wondering is how do we dovetail, when you come to calculate the benefits versus cost, do they go a little bit beyond the project itself, or do they look into the overall features as to the ultimate good to the Nation at large?

That point I am bringing up as to bringing this additional land under cultivation at this time; was that point thought out when you figured this 2-to-1 ratio?

General HARDIN. Yes, sir, I think so, in this respect. We have to make a canal and a system of locks and dams outside of the river itself. This river is such a wild performer in times of high stages that the amount of material which it carries and the width and shallowness of its valley makes it impractical to build a navigation system in the river itself.

Mr. ANDERSEN. I understand that.

General HARDIN. Therefore, we have to build some canals.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Certainly, and in so doing you tend to improve the land it goes through.

General HARDIN. As a secondary benefit.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Certainly; but how much of that 2 to 1 benefit-cost ratio is applied to the improvement in value of this particular quantity of land?

General HARDIN. About 5 percent.

Mr. ANDERSEN. About 5 percent is all?

General HARDIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANDERSEN. How much commerce do you have today between Shreveport and the Mississippi?

General HARDIN. By water?

Mr. ANDERSEN. Yes.

General HARDIN. It is very intermittent, of course, since the type of river movements has changed from the old steamboat days when Shreveport was the head of navigation.

Mr. ANDERSEN. You might say you have very little, if any, firm commerce?

General HARDIN. Very little moving there now outside of construction.

Mr. ANDERSEN. You do anticipate 3%1⁄2 million tons?

General HARDIN. Sizable movement. I am not prepared to say what it is going to be.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Your justification says 3,064,000. The point I am bringing up, I am following Mr. Jensen's and Mr. Boland's line of reasoning, where is the river going to get this 3 million tons of commerce? Is that coming directly away from the railroads and the trucklines that now pay taxes to the communities and States through which they operate? Is that being taken directly away from those particular arteries? When I think of trucklines I am thinking of the $36 billion bill we are going to have on the House floor later this week to improve the highways system of America.

I would be glad to have you go into detail, if you wish, but I cannot see how we can justify $88 million to improve 300 miles of that particular river and, as I understand it, unless I am wrong, it is mainly for navigation purposes; is it not?

General HARDIN. Almost entirely.

Mr. ANDERSEN. I want to give you an opportunity to reply without interruption, and I will be glad to listen to your case.

if

General HARDIN. Well, I am afraid I will be repeating myself but, you bear with me

Mr. ANDERSEN. Let us leave it this way. Would you like to put further facts in the record at this point? I would like a very good, detailed study of just what this particular project does entail or

envision and I would rather have it as something I can sit down and look at and study and discuss later when we are making up our minds than something of which perhaps you cannot recall every detail here, nobody can.

Will you put it in the record?

General HARDIN. Yes, sir; I will be glad to. (The matter referred to follows:)

OVERTON-RED RIVER WATERWAY

The only detailed study presently available on the Overton-Red River Waterway is that contained in House Document 320, 81st Congress, which outlines the project authorized in the River and Harbor Act, approved July 24, 1946. The $300,000 requested for fiscal year 1957 is to be used in the preparation of an up-to-date, detailed study and thorough analysis of the economics of that project. The up-to-date, detailed facts and figures cannot be furnished the committee until that study is made inasmuch as these data are not now available.

However the general information previously given in the course of this hearing is summarized below.

Since the earliest days of the Republic waterways have been used and improved from time to time to keep abreast of the need for economical waterborne transportation of certain products of industry and agriculture. Historically the position of the Federal Government has been to develop waterways and improvements to waterways wherever it is in the national interest and the savings in waterborne transportation exceed the cost of the improvements. The use of such improvements has been free and open to all on an equal basis. The Government has provided the channels and navigation aids and local interests have provided the harbor facilities and transportation support.

Waterway transportation is more in the nature of being supplementary to other means of transportation rather than competitive. The diversion of slow bulk freight to low-cost water carriers is resulting in an improvement in the balance and effectiveness of our national transportation system. In a number of instances the largest and most profitable railway operations are those that serve our ports or parallel our waterways. The same may be said about the trucking industry. Basically it is this adjustment of carriers taking into consideration type of commodity to be moved, speed of movement required, and cost of transportation that develops a sound and effective transportation system.

With respect to the Overton-Red River Waterway, its development is not approached on the basis of whether or not other types of transportation are adequate to carry the burden but rather on the basis that a certain volume and type of commodities would use the waterway and that the savings in transportation costs would outweigh the costs of initial construction and subsequent maintenance. The savings will not accrue solely to the immediate vicinity of Shreveport but will extend over that entire region-even into Texas. The bulk commodities will come from the Ohio and Upper Mississippi Rivers to Alexandria and Shreveport for distribution throughout the region by other means of transportation. The savings resulting from this delivery of bulk commodities will encourage the interchange of commerce between all points on the inland waterway system. Thus the benefits do not accrue to only one specific locality but to all industrial and agricultural regions touched by the inland waterway system.

TOTAL COST OF AWR BASIN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. KIRWAN. The General just pointed out what the study of the basin consisted of. How much is the whole project going to cost in this basin? This one is $88 million. What is the total amount of it all?

Of

General SEEMAN. The total cost for the Arkansas, the central basin of this area, is over a billion dollars, $1,100 million at this time. course, this is no recommendation for this body to go ahead on that construction.

Mr. KIRWAN. You say that is the total for the Arkansas?

General SEEMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. KIRWAN. What is for the White and the Red?
General SEEMAN. I will have to add that up.

Mr. KIRWAN. You supply that for the record for the White and the Red Rivers, the whole basin, what it will cost and what is coming in. There is a lot of power money in that. Bull Shoals has a lot of power in it. But the navigation end of it, as the rest of the Members have asked, I wish you would stress that quite a bit for the record. (The matter referred to follows:)

EXISTING, UNDER CONSTRUCTION, AND AUTHORIZED PROJECTS IN THE ARKANSAS, WHITE, AND RED RIVER BASINS

[blocks in formation]

Included in the above amount of $1,667,900,500 for the Arkansas River Basin is $766,500,000 for navigation features and $247,940,000 for four multiple-purpose dams including power. The Dardanelle lock and dam and the Short Mountain Dam, the costs of which are included in the cost of the navigation features, also will produce power.

WHITE RIVER BASIN

The cost of the navigation features in the White River Basin is approximately $1,248,000. Of the 9 reservoir projects in this basin, 5 are multiple-purpose projects including power. The estimated cost of these 5 projects is $269,120,000.

RED RIVER BASIN

The cost of the navigation features in the Red River Basin is approximately $108,899,105. The multiple-purpose projects including power in the basin have an estimated cost of $140,386,000.

Mr. KIRWAN. There is not much transportation, it was said a couple of weeks ago, 500,000 tons of sand and gravel on the Arkansas. The general just admitted it is nil between a certain point and Shreveport, practically nothing on that. Here we are going to spend a couple of billion dollars where there is nothing, no transportation, and as Mr. Andersen said it will come from two sources, the trucks and the railroads. If there is any, they are shipping it by truck and railroad now. So it is no new transportation that will come over the horizon. It is something that is already here.

I think the bill next week is $51 billion for highways. Just like the waterways, from here on now there will be a highway bill every 2 years the same as a river and harbor bill. We will come to an understanding some day that you cannot continue to build highways and take the traffic off the highway and put it on the river. Something has to give.

General HARDIN. May I add one comment, at the expense of a little repetition. As I said in one of the previous statements before the committee this year, this thing about water transportation, it is not fair to say that you are going to take transportation away from other means of transport as the only thing which will result. There may be some adjustment in the carriers, true. But waterway transportation enables a region to develop and carry things which would

[graphic]
« PreviousContinue »