Christi, Tex., and its extension to the vicinity of the Mexican border. (c) A modification of the present project for the Intracoastal Waterway between Mobile Bay, Ala., and New Orleans, La., the same being a section of the waterway between Apalachee Bay and Corpus Christi. (d) Pending the completion of the Cross Florida Barge Canal, the construction of one or more pipe lines, together with all necessary terminal facilities, for the transportation of petroleum and its products from the vicinity of Port St. Joe to the vicinity of Jacksonville, Fla. (e) The construction of a crude-oil pipe line from the Tinsley oil field, located in the vicinity of Yazoo, Miss., to either Charleston, S. C., or Savannah, Ga., whichever of the said cities, or both, on the inland waterway meets with the approval of the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of War. The proposed barge canal as described in item (a) would provide a waterway between the Gulf coast and the Atlantic seaboard. I am of the opinion that the canal should have a depth of 12 feet, minimum width of 150 feet, and should be of the lock type. The canal would receive its water supply for lockages from Oklawaha River and Silver Springs Run. The locks are to be designed so that the water surface in this section can be maintained between elevations 42 and 55, which is the range through which the water table in the adjacent area has fluctuated in the past. By maintaining the summit pool at the natural groundwater level at all times the groundwater level in the area will in no way be affected by the canal. The enlargement of the present Gulf intracoastal waterway from the vicinity of Apalachee Bay to Corpus Christi, Tex., and its extension to the vicinity of the Mexican border, as proposed in this bill, would, in connection with the barge canal, provide a continuous and improved 12-foot waterway from Port Isabel, Tex., to Trenton, N. J., with the exception of a stretch on the Gulf coast of Florida from the mouth of the Withlacoochee River, the western terminus of the barge canal, to Carrabelle, Fla. In this stretch barge traffic could use the open waters of the Gulf, which route, while not safe at all times, is comparatively close to the shore line and with the exception of a very few days in the year is usable for barge navigation. In pursuance of the authority of Congress the Department has made a careful review of previous reports regarding the intracoastal waterway from Mobile, Ala., to New Orleans, La., with a view to determining the advisability of modifying the existing project. A report giving the results of this review was transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with my letter of May 19, 1942. The value in time of war of an improved through inland waterway from Port Isabel to Trenton, with a minimum depth of 12 feet, is believed sufficient to warrant construction of these improvements. It is my opinion that construction of the cross-Florida barge canal and the enlargement and extension of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway should be authorized by Congress now and that construction should be initiated at the earliest date at which work can be commenced without interfering with construction directly connected with the war effort. I believe that the canal and waterway should have a minimum width of 150 feet instead of 125 feet as stated in the bill. With respect to the construction of a pipe line across Florida for the transportation of petroleum products, we have recently completed a study of the possibility of a more intensive utilization of the existing inland and Intracoastal Waterway routes for the movement of oil from the Gulf fields to the eastern seaboard area. If such a pipe line were made available, the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway could be placed in immediate use to afford dependable water transportation by barge for hauling oil from the Texas and Louisiana fields directly to the Philadelphia refining area. Such a route would be relatively free from war hazards. The carrying capacity of the route would be limited only by the number of barges and towboats which could be made available for the petroleum movement, and by the capacity of the pipe line or lines which would have to be laid across Florida to make the connection. Assuming reasonably prompt procurement of materials such a pipe line could be constructed in a period of 6 months or less. There is urgent need for the increase in the volume of oil moving from the Gulf coast to the Atlantic seaboard, and I believe that provision should be made for the immediate construction of a pipe line of adequate capacity. The construction of an oil pipe line from either Charleston or Savannah to the Tinsley oil fields, as provided in the bill, is a matter concerning which the War Department has made no investigation or study. Since I have no information regarding the project, other than that developed at the hearings on this bill before the Rivers and Harbors Committee of the House of Representatives, and that obtained by informal discussions with two or three interested parties, I am unable to express an opinion as to its value or cost. Senator MCNARY. General Reybold, what was the last project with which you said you were not familiar? Senator VANDENBERG. The Tinsley oil fields. Major General REYBOLD. That was an amendment, Senator, inserted, I believe, on the floor of the House. Senator VANDENBERG. General Reybold, you are familiar with the fact, however, that Mr. Eastman's department has reported against the Tinsley pipe line, are you? Major General REYBOLD. I did not know; no, sir. Senator VANDENBERG. You have no information at all on that? Major General REYBOLD. No, sir. Senator VANDENBERG. As a matter of fact, your department has not studied that pipe line or that problem at all, has it? Major General REYBOLD. No, sir; further than to indicate the value of our inland waterways for the transportation of this oil. Senator VANDENBERG. Has the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors ever built a pipe line? Major General REYBOLD. No; it has not. Senator VANDENBERG. General Reybold, referring to the canal across northern Florida, in what respect does this proposed barge canal differ from the barge canal which was contemplated in the original Rivers and Harbors bill, H. R. 5993, defined in House Document No. 194, Seventy-fifth Congress, first session? I am referring to the barge canal which was to precede and be an integral part of the ultimate ship canal. You undoubtedly know what it is I am speaking of. In what respect does this barge canal differ from that contemplation? Major General REYBOLD. This is a lock canal, Senator, whereas the other one was a sea-level canal. Senator PEPPER. That is correct. Senator VANDENBERG. Suppose it were ultimately deemed advisable to proceed with the full ship-canal plan. Would this barge canal which you are now recommending be a useful start in that direction? Major General REYBOLD. I would judge so; yes, sir. Senator VANDENBERG. It follows the same route? Major General REYBOLD. Yes, sir. Senator VANDENBERG. How far out to sea does the west end of the proposed pending barge canal go? Does it go to any such length as the original canal plan required, which was 15 to 16 miles? Major General REYBOLD. It would go out to the 13- or 14-foot depth, about 8 miles. Senator VANDENBERG. About 8 miles out? Major General REYBOLD. Yes. Senator VANDENBERG. What sort of construction do you have to put in to maintain that sort of channel in the open Gulf? Major General REYBOLD. No jetty construction is contemplated. Senator VANDENBERG. What does your plan contemplate? Major General REYBOLD. It is an open cut, Senator That is rock cut through there and would be open. Senator VANDENBERG. No dikes or dams would be required? Major General REYBOLD. No. Maintenance dredging would be required, however. Senator VANDENBERG. How many locks are in this proposal? Senator VANDENBERG. What is the size and capacity of each lock? Major General REYBOLD. The locks are 75 feet wide by 600 feet in length. Senator VANDENBERG. How long would it take a barge tow to traverse the canal? Senator PEPPER. Do you mean the entire canal? Senator VANDENBERG. I mean just across Florida. Senator PEPPER. Do you mean to the St. Johns River, Senator? From Withlacoochee Bay to St. Johns River? Senator VANDENBERG. I mean from the western terminus of the barge canal to the eastern terminus, wherever that is. Senator PEPPER. The canal terminates in the St. Johns River. Major General REYBOLD. I would judge, making about 6 miles an hour in the pools and a half hour per lockage-possibly three-quarters of an hour for lockage-it would be about 18 hours. Senator VANDENBERG. Eighteen hours to traverse the canal? Senator BAILEY. What is the distance? Major General REYBOLD. About 90 miles. Senator VANDENBERG. How many bridges would have to be built? Major General REYBOLD. Eight to be reconstructed. Senator VANDENBERG. Is the cost of reconstructing that number of bridges included in your estimate? Major General REYBOLD. Yes, sir. Senator VANDENBERG. Are the bridges to be reconstructed at Government expense? Major General REYBOLD. Yes, sir; but maintained and operated by the local interests. Senator VANDENBERG. What is the difference between this Mansfield bill and the Mansfield bill of 2 or 3 weeks ago, which included $144,000,000, this bill coming down to a matter of just small change, relatively, $93,000,000? Major General REYBOLD. The former one included the inland route, Senator, from Apalachicola Bay down Florida to Port Inglis, where you would enter on the west coast. Now it is contemplated to use the open Gulf for that. Senator VANDENBERG. You are satisfied to use the open Gulf instead of the route originally proposed? Major General REYBOLD. Well, it is not as good, but I think it can be used with reasonable safety. Senator VANDENBERG. How long do you think it would take you to build this canal and get it into actual operation? Major General REYBOLD. Three years. Senator VANDENBERG. Three years? Major General REYBOLD. Yes, sir. Senator VANDENBERG. I am talking about the Florida Canal now. Major General REYBOLD. Yes, sir. Senator VANDENBERG. Even that would depend upon priorities, would it not? Senator VANDENBERG. Do you think you could get the priorities? What has been the attitude of the War Production Board toward developments of this character? Major General REYBOLD. We have not had anything exactly like this, but we have had plenty of difficulty in securing priorities for steel and other materials throughout our building program all over the country. Senator VANDENBERG. Your 3-year estimate is based upon a reasonably easy flow of material, is it not? Major General REYBOLD. Yes, sir; and also equipment and manpower. Senator VANDENBERG. If you ran into any priority difficulties, it would take more than 3 years? Major General REYBOLD. It might; yes, sir. Senator MCNARY. I am somewhat confused. I thought you stated a while ago that you could complete this construction in 6 months. Senator VANDENBERG. That is the pipe line. Major General REYBOLD. That is the pipe line, Senator. Senator VANDENBERG. This is the canal, which is separate from the pipe line. Major General REYBOLD. This is the waterway itself, the crossFlorida Canal. Senator MCNARY. This is the first meeting I have attended, so I should like to understand this. With reference to the canal provided for in this bill, how long would it be before shipments of oil could be made from points in Texas to New Jersey? Major General REYBOLD. My present estimate is 3 years. The pipe line, Senator, that we have referred to extends from here across to the St. Johns River here [indicating on a map]. Senator MCNARY. I thought we had in mind a pipe line across Florida. Senator CLARK of Missouri. We do. There are two different proposals. Senator MCNARY. I thought I had heard that the canal could be completed in 15 months. Major General REYBOLD. I have heard that statement about 15 months, too; but it never came from me. Senator VANDENBERG. That is important. In addition to that, General, the canal is of no utility except as barges and tows are available; is not that true? Major General REYBOLD. Yes, sir. Senator VANDENBERG. The tows require propulsion machinery, and priorities are required in that respect, also, are they not? Major General REYBOLD. Yes, sir. Senator VANDENBERG. Is there not in the United States at the present time a tremendous shortage of engine equipment, which would make it rather foolish to contemplate an easy delivery of such equipment? Major General REYBOLD. Well, I would not say that, Senator. There is, of course, a shortage of all kinds of machinery, but someone would have to weigh the evidence and attach the importance to the machinery of towboats as compared to other items required in the war effort. In any event, you are Senator VANDENBERG. That is true, of course. constantly at the mercy of priorities in every phase? Major General REYBOLD. There is no way to dodge them. Senator VANDENBERG. Even without the problem of priorities, you would want to make an estimate of 3 years in which to complete the undertaking across Florida? Major General REYBOLD. Yes, sir. Senator VANDENBERG. That is all I wish to ask. Senator CLARK of Missouri. In other words, if there were no question at all of priorities involved, and assuming you could get full priorities, you would still estimate 3 years? Major General REYBOLD. Yes, sir, I would at this moment. There are 81,000,000 yards of excavation in this project, of which 18,000,000 are rock. We would tackle that job by placing two of the most powerful dredges we could get on each end and build two more dredges. We would also use drag lines to the full extent. If someone should decide to extend the green light I would still like to have 3 years in which to complete that project. Senator CLARK of Missouri. How long would it take to build the rest of the project and deepen the end from Corpus Christi? Major General REYBOLD. That depends, Senator, upon the amount of dredging equipment that might be made available. There is a good, wide expanse there. Every piece of equipment you could get would aid in building it faster. Senator CLARK of Missouri. How much work would have to be done on this proposal from Corpus Christi to the Rio Grande Valley? Would that be slower than the deepening of the channel to Corpus Christi? |