undertake navigation improvements (quote) ". . . within the limits of every State in the Union. .”—a Federal program for waterway improvement was initiated with the removal of snags and sandbars from the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. Throughout the 19th Century, the Federal effort was devoted almost exclusively to the improvement of navigational facilities, although flood control became a consideration with the formation of the Mississippi River Commission in 1879, and was extended with the establishment of the California Debris Commission in 1893. The concept of water resources development continued to broaden through the turn of the century, particularly in 1906, when the Inland Waterway Commission declared the need for comprehensive plans which". . . should consider and include all the uses to which streams may be put.'

In transmitting the Commission's report to the Congress, President Theodore Roosevelt emphasized that (quote): "The National Government must play the leading part in securing the largest possible use of our waterways; other agencies can assist and should assist, but the work is essentially national in its scope." This concept has guided our water resources policy since that time, and it has enabled us, to date, to meet the demands of a constantly expanding industrial technology and a growing population. In meeting these demands, many of our public works programs have succeeded far beyond our expectations.

The canalization of the Ohio River offers a dramatic illustration of the contribution of waterway development to economic and industrial growth. When the original system was completed in 1922, the river was carrying six million tons of cargo annually. By 1929 traffic had increased to 24 million tons. Although the system was expected to meet forseeable requirements, the impetus given to commercial and industrial expansion in the Ohio Valley was so great that in less than 20 years it became apparent that a modernization program would be necessary. At that time traffic was in excess of 34 million tons, and modern tows had to be broken up in order to pass through each of the 46 locks.

By 1955, wnen construction was started on the first of the new and larger replacement structures, traffic had risen to 71 million tons. And by 1963, with only three of the 17 proposed new locks in operation, annual tonnage had increased to more than 88 million. Of even greater significance, however, is the fact that since World War II, more than $21 billion worth of new industrial development has taken place in the counties along the Ohio River and its navigable tributaries.

A success story of similar proportions has emerged in the Pacific Northwestthe great region which Daniel Webster once referred to as “. this vast worthless area this region of savages and wild beasts, of deserts of shifting sands and whirlwinds of dust, of cactus and prairie dogs. . ." The multi-purpose development of the Columbia River providing abundant cheap electric power has, within the past 25 years, transformed much of the Pacific Northwest from a region largely dependent on farming, mining, lumber and fishing into a major center for the production of aluminum and aircraft.

Thus we see the reciprocal interaction between new technologies, new social and economic needs and new uses for stream development. In the past, our national interest in water resources was concentrated on navigation, irrigation, winning the West and lessening the impact of natural disasters. Today, our concern is widening to include the effort to provide a greater share of the national growth for the lesser developed regions, to assure the protection and enhancement of the quality of our physical environment, and to provide opportunity for our citizens to enjoy the physical and spirtual enjoyment of the natural environment.

Consequently, recreation, maintenance and improvement of water quality, wilderness preservation and water development for Appalachia and other underdeveloped regions are needs which are receiving increased attention and emphasis. Though protection against droughts and floods, promotion of navigation and the production of hydroelectire power will continue to be primary considerations, these purposes are but a few of the ever-expanding set of socially desirable objectives which water resources planning must accommodate.

These new and emerging objectives of water planning require creative and refined methods of analysis and economic evaluation. It is, for example, a considerably more complex problem to develop monetary values for the tangible as well as intangible benefits of improved water quality than to compute flood damages or the costs of barge versus rail freight rates. And it is infinitely more difficult than either of these to develop the kind of analytical methods and economic models required by the regional water development study which was authorized in the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965.

Our methods of water resources planning and economic evaluation should meet several general objectives. First, they should generate and evaluate the widest

possible range of alternatives for consideration by the public and their elected representatives. For example, in order to maintain the water quality of a given stream in the face of industrial expansion, we must examine the options of stream augmentation, construction of waste treatment facilities, requirement of in-process changes, or a combination of these as well as a consideration of other values which might be of such weight that industrial expansion should be prevented. And whatever the choice, we must determine how the costs should be allocated for the nondirect user benefits.

Secondly, our planning and evaluation processes should appraise the values that all segments of society place on specific uses, abuses, enjoyment or appreciation of water resources. For example, one stretch of the Kanawha River in my own State of West Virginia contains one of the heaviest concentrations of the petrochemical industry in the world. I doubt if we shall ever be able to fish trout or even bass from that section of the river. But profitable operation of the chemical industry in the valley does not require the people of Charleston, West Virginia, to tolerate a public health hazard.

Third, the appraisal of values must include an attempt to ascertain how values develop or degenerate with the passage of time, either because corrective action is too slow and alternatives are lost, or because action is so hasty that future options are foreclosed. To refer again to the Kanawha River, because of the lack of timely corrective or preventive action, most recreational use of the industrial stretch of the river is probably permanently foreclosed, and even further industrial expansion is temporarily precluded until water quality is improved.

These are some of the general objectives that must be and that are being met by the water resources planning which was authorized by Section 206 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965. This Act was a fundamental step forward for the Congress, not only in the development of our general economic policy, but also specifically with regard to water resources planning. The Appalachian Water Resources Survey, authorized by that Act, is the first major attempt to analyze the developmental role which water resources planning may perform in stimulating a regional economy and in the achievement of sustained regional growth. And I am pleased to commend Col. John C. H. Lee, Jr., Director of the Office of Appalachian Studies, and his excellent staff for their creative and constructive approach toward the implementation of this Section of the Act. The Congress has overwhelmingly endorsed, and the Administration-somewhat reluctantly in some quarters-has accepted, the commitment to regional economic development. On August 26, 1965, the President signed PL 89-136, the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, of which Title 5 provides authority for the establishment of other regional action planning commissions modeled after the Appalachian Regional Development Commission. Since enactment of this legislation there have been established five regional commissions, the Ozarks, embracing parts of the States of Missouri, Arkansas and Oklahoma; the Upper Great Lakes, incorporating the northern portions of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan; the New England Regional Commission, embracing all of the six New England States; the Southeast Coastal Plains, incorporating the eastern portions of North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia; and the Four Corners Region which takes in parts of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah.

Though these regions have widely differing problems, it is correct to conjecture that planning and development of water resources—either in terms of enhancing water quality, as in New England, or augmenting water supply, as in the Four Corners-will be a major factor in the economic development of these regions. It is in this regard that Section 206 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act will become a major milestone in water resources legislation. For the methodology developed in the Appalachian Water Resources Study will have significant applications to the other regions. The benefit analysis used in this survey departs from traditional methods in several important respects: (1) it proposes to trace the benefit flow beyond the initial users in order to assess the impact of public investments on the regional and the national economy; (2) it provides for two separate accounts, regional and national, in which to estimate benefits; (3) it distinguishes between user and expansion benefits; (4) it provides for the apportionment of benefits among development programs where economic expansion is the result of combined development efforts, such as water resources, vocational education facilities and improvement of health facilities; and (5) it suggests methods for comparative weighting of regional and national benefits where a single benefit cost ratio is desired.

In the light of these advances in the refinement of our analytical tools and the development of economic models, I would suggest two areas for the extension

of water resources planning that I think could yield significant benefits in the Nation as a whole. At your conference last year in Scottsboro, Sid McFarland emphasized the need for bringing an additional 2.5 million acre feet to the water supplies of the Colorado River so such augmentation was "supportable purely on the basis of an examination of the adverse economic effect on the conflict between States and with Mexico which would result from not at least meeting present water commitments." I concur in this judgment, and I believe that economic analyses should be used to determine how this should be done and not whether it should be done.

One of the areas of extension of water resources planning which I advocate would be to use the refined techniques of economic evaluation to identify those regions of the country which, with water resources development, could support large population increases. Daily newspapers headlines note the incidence of crime, delinquency, riots, congestion and environmental pollution causing us to realize that most of our vast urban cities no longer offer a solid foundation for the Great Society, nor even for the good life. We now have the social, economic and technological tools to disperse our population and to resist the inertia which continues to crowd more and more people into less and less space. I believe that water resouces planners should lead in reversing this process and dispersing our population and thereby stimulating a new surge of social and economic development in rural America.

A second thought which I present for your consideration also stems from the development of regional resource planning techniques-that is, "induced development planning" as distinguished from "response planning." In this concept I suggest that we consider planning our water resources development on a program basis rather than project-by-project. For example, we now have some 19,000 miles of navigable waterways. Instead of authorizing additional navigation projects on a piecemeal basis, we might well consider looking at the economic needs of the United States for the year 1985 and for the year 2005. We should then project goals for the completion of additional mileage and improvement of present navigable streams and the construction of additional harbors in terms of those target dates, with a scheduled level of annual appropriations to meet those goals. This is the philosophy which has worked successfully with the Interstate and Defense Highway System, the most extensive civil works program in history. It would seem to me that the parallel with water transportation bears close analysis and the most serious attention. The same approach might effectively be applied to other phases of water resources planning in irrigation, reclamation, beach erosion and water quality improvement. I am aware that this suggestion runs counter to some of the cherished practices of the Executive and the Legislative branches of Government, and that it might seem to curtail some of the authority of Members in the Congress. It is my conviction, however, that the needs for national resources planning are paramount and we now have the intellectual tools to meet those needs. We are faced with the problem of an ever-growing population and frequently misplaced water supplies. If the type of life which we have taught this generation to expect is to be continued, we must re-examine the ways we have done the job. We must appraise and reappraise our goals. New methods and new approaches must be forged to meet new challenges.

The CHAIRMAN. You have said also, "Often the most desirable location for a bridge from the aspect of navigation requirements does not coincide with the demands of the highway construction." Presumably, we have found a problem there near Point Pleasant; is that true?

Admiral TRIMBLE. Yes, sir; I think that is a very good example of the problem. There are a number of locations along the Ohio River above and below Point Pleasant that would be more suitable for the waterway interests but you have to consider the surface, the highway users, as well as the builtup sections of Point Pleasant, the nearness to Point Pleasant, the traffic pattern to Charleston, the intrastate highway system, the confluence of the Kanawha River, the contour and topography of the land on either side of the river, the approaches to the bridge there are many factors that have to be taken into consideration.

The Coast Guard is principally interested in the safety of navigation as far as bridges are concerned. A site has been selected, as you are aware, just below the confluence of the Kanawha and Ohio Rivers. This means more of a problem for waterway safety and the span widths have to take this into consideration.

For safe navigation of tows coming out of the Kanawha River and making a turn down the Ohio, the bridge span must necessarily be wider than for a bridge not located so near the confluence.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, the costs that are borne, do these come from highway users and the railroads?

Admiral TRIMBLE. The costs for a new bridge do come from highway funds or railroad company funds.

Now if it is removal of obstruction under the Truman-Hobbs Act, the Federal Government, specifically the Coast Guard, pays for the cost of removing that obstruction. That is a different problem.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. A final question. Admiral, you say that you have the nine district offices, you have the professional staff, and that you have 21 persons that carry on this work. Let me ask you, are you adequately staffed to do this job?

Admiral TRIMBLE. I think we will be adequately staffed when we complete the plan for this year. As you are probably aware from the statement, we assumed these functions the first of April of last year. The Corps of Engineers has been most cooperative and readily agreed to act as our agent through this fiscal year while we were staffing and while we were developing the expertise needed to carry on in the effective manner in which the Corps of Engineers has carried out these functions. So we have been able this year through the Corps of Engineers' assistance to handle the problem. I feel that this staffing plan is adequate as we see the picture at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. There is an added question that seems appropriate in reference to the Point Pleasant bridge construction. Has a permit been filed as yet with the Coast Guard for that bridge?

Admiral TRIMBLE. Mr. Chairman, a request for a permit was received by our St. Louis office yesterday from the State of West Virginia, and we will be proceeding promptly with public hearings. As the Corps of Engineers' practice in the past, we are continuing that procedure. It is not required by law but there are so many elements of public interest involved that we think this is the best way of letting the interested parties express their views regarding a public bridge of this sort.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, you are aware and you are participating in the action necessary such that this bridge can be constructed and in use as quickly as possible.

Admiral TRIMBLE. Mr. Chairman, this has motivated our actions. We had a preliminary meeting in Pittsburgh last week and this was a meeting rather than a public hearing to expedite action to get a preliminary feel for the public interest and the public needs.

Our entire action in this case will be expedited so that the Coast Guard will not be part of the problem of delay in constructing the bridge. We fully recognize the desire to get the bridge started promptly. The CHAIRMAN. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Admiral TRIMBLE. On the record, sir, we are very heavily involved in the inland waters. Of course, we are more involved in the coastal

zone and international waters but we are certainly heavily involved in the inland waters also. As a matter of information, our involvement at Point Pleasant was one of our largest rescue cases in recent years; and it was an inland case which makes it all the more unusual.

The CHAIRMAN. Have all the victims of the tragedy been recovered? Admiral TRIMBLE. No; the vehicles were recovered but there are still some victims that have not been recovered.

The CHAIRMAN. Possibly three or four, I believe, from memory, but upward of 45 persons were involved in the rescue mission; is that correct?

Admiral TRIMBLE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Admiral Trimble and Commander Olson, we are very helped this morning by your testimony.

Senator Cooper, would you have comment?

Senator COOPER. I have read the testimony of Admiral Trimble and it is very helpful. I am glad to welcome you here this morning, Admiral.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cooper.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Colonel Anderson.

Colonel Anderson, we know you appear today for General Woodbury. You will give your name and also the name of the associate sitting with you.

STATEMENT OF LT. COL. FERD E. ANDERSON, JR., ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS, CENTRAL DIVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ACCOMPANIED BY WENDELL JOHNSON, CHIEF, ENGINEERING DIVISION, DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL WORKS

Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.

I am Lt. Col. Ferd E. Anderson, Jr. I am the Assistant Director of Civil Works for the Central Divisions.

Accompanying me is Mr. Wendell Johnson, the Chief of our Engineering Division in the Directorate of Civil Works.

I am representing General Woodbury this morning. I am very sorry that he cannot be present to make his statement. You have a copy of the statement and in general it discusses the role the Corps played in the recovery operations at the Point Pleasant disaster and then makes certain recommendations to the committee concerning aspects of improving bridge safety in the United States.

There are four particular points made on page 10 of the statement that we are recommending for your consideration in seeking ways to limit the bridge safety problem. These points are concerning bridge inspection, bridge load limit markings, the enforcement of load limits and a review of the design standards.

Mr. Johnson and I would be pleased to answer any questions that we can that you may have concerning the statement or other aspects of the Corps of Engineers roles and procedures.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Colonel Anderson. General Woodbury's statement will appear at this point in the record.

(The prepared statement of Colonel Anderson is as follows:)