Title: Enlargement and extension of the gulf intracoastal waterway including the construction of a barge channel and pipe line across northern Florida :
CITATION DOWNLOADS THUMBNAILS ZOOMABLE PAGE IMAGE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/NF00000180/00001
 Material Information
Title: Enlargement and extension of the gulf intracoastal waterway including the construction of a barge channel and pipe line across northern Florida :
Physical Description: Photograph
Publisher: U.S. G.P.O
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: NF00000180
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of North Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: ltqf - AAA8216

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

00001 ( PDF )

00002 ( PDF )

00003 ( PDF )

00004 ( PDF )

00005 ( PDF )

00006 ( PDF )

00007 ( PDF )

00008 ( PDF )

00009 ( PDF )

00010 ( PDF )

00011 ( PDF )

00012 ( PDF )

00013 ( PDF )

00014 ( PDF )

00015 ( PDF )

00016 ( PDF )

00017 ( PDF )

00018 ( PDF )

00019 ( PDF )

00020 ( PDF )

00021 ( PDF )

00022 ( PDF )

00023 ( PDF )

00024 ( PDF )

00025 ( PDF )

00026 ( PDF )

00027 ( PDF )

00028 ( PDF )

00029 ( PDF )

00030 ( PDF )

00031 ( PDF )

00032 ( PDF )

00033 ( PDF )

00034 ( PDF )

00035 ( PDF )

00036 ( PDF )

00037 ( PDF )

00038 ( PDF )

00039 ( PDF )

00040 ( PDF )

00041 ( PDF )

00042 ( PDF )

00043 ( PDF )

00044 ( PDF )

00045 ( PDF )

00046 ( PDF )

00047 ( PDF )

00048 ( PDF )

00049 ( PDF )

00050 ( PDF )

00051 ( PDF )

00052 ( PDF )

00053 ( PDF )

00054 ( PDF )

00055 ( PDF )

00056 ( PDF )

00057 ( PDF )

00058 ( PDF )

00059 ( PDF )

00060 ( PDF )

00061 ( PDF )

00062 ( PDF )

00063 ( PDF )

00064 ( PDF )

00065 ( PDF )

00066 ( PDF )

00067 ( PDF )

00068 ( PDF )

00069 ( PDF )

00070 ( PDF )

00071 ( PDF )

00072 ( PDF )

00073 ( PDF )

00074 ( PDF )

00075 ( PDF )

00075a ( PDF )

00076 ( PDF )

00077 ( PDF )

00078 ( PDF )

00079 ( PDF )

00080 ( PDF )

00081 ( PDF )

00082 ( PDF )

00083 ( PDF )

00084 ( PDF )

00085 ( PDF )

00086 ( PDF )

00087 ( PDF )

00088 ( PDF )

00089 ( PDF )

00090 ( PDF )

00091 ( PDF )

00092 ( PDF )

00093 ( PDF )

00094 ( PDF )

00095 ( PDF )

00096 ( PDF )

00097 ( PDF )

00098 ( PDF )

00099 ( PDF )

00100 ( PDF )

00101 ( PDF )

00102 ( PDF )

00103 ( PDF )

00104 ( PDF )

00105 ( PDF )

00106 ( PDF )

00107 ( PDF )

00108 ( PDF )

00109 ( PDF )

00110 ( PDF )

00111 ( PDF )

00112 ( PDF )

00113 ( PDF )

00114 ( PDF )

00115 ( PDF )

00116 ( PDF )

00117 ( PDF )

00118 ( PDF )

00119 ( PDF )

00120 ( PDF )

00121 ( PDF )

00122 ( PDF )

00123 ( PDF )

00124 ( PDF )

00125 ( PDF )

00126 ( PDF )

00127 ( PDF )

00128 ( PDF )

00129 ( PDF )

00130 ( PDF )

00131 ( PDF )

00132 ( PDF )

00133 ( PDF )

00134 ( PDF )

00135 ( PDF )

00136 ( PDF )

00137 ( PDF )

00138 ( PDF )

00139 ( PDF )

00140 ( PDF )

00140a ( PDF )

00141 ( PDF )

00142 ( PDF )

00143 ( PDF )

00144 ( PDF )

00145 ( PDF )

00146 ( PDF )

00147 ( PDF )

00148 ( PDF )

00149 ( PDF )

00150 ( PDF )

00151 ( PDF )

00152 ( PDF )

00153 ( PDF )

00154 ( PDF )

00155 ( PDF )

00156 ( PDF )

00157 ( PDF )

00158 ( PDF )

00159 ( PDF )

00160 ( PDF )

00161 ( PDF )

00162 ( PDF )

00163 ( PDF )

00164 ( PDF )

00165 ( PDF )

00166 ( PDF )

00167 ( PDF )

00168 ( PDF )

00169 ( PDF )

00170 ( PDF )

00171 ( PDF )

00172 ( PDF )

00173 ( PDF )

00174 ( PDF )

00175 ( PDF )

00176 ( PDF )

00177 ( PDF )

00178 ( PDF )

00179 ( PDF )

00180 ( PDF )

00181 ( PDF )

00182 ( PDF )

00183 ( PDF )

00184 ( PDF )

00185 ( PDF )

00186 ( PDF )

00187 ( PDF )

00188 ( PDF )

00189 ( PDF )

00190 ( PDF )

00191 ( PDF )

00192 ( PDF )

00193 ( PDF )

00194 ( PDF )

00195 ( PDF )

00196 ( PDF )

00197 ( PDF )

00198 ( PDF )

00199 ( PDF )

00200 ( PDF )

00201 ( PDF )

00202 ( PDF )

00203 ( PDF )

00204 ( PDF )

00205 ( PDF )

00206 ( PDF )

00207 ( PDF )

00207a ( PDF )

00208 ( PDF )

00209 ( PDF )

00210 ( PDF )

00211 ( PDF )

00212 ( PDF )

00213 ( PDF )

00214 ( PDF )

00215 ( PDF )

00216 ( PDF )

00217 ( PDF )

00218 ( PDF )

00219 ( PDF )

00220 ( PDF )

00221 ( PDF )

00222 ( PDF )

00223 ( PDF )

00224 ( PDF )

00225 ( PDF )

00226 ( PDF )

00227 ( PDF )

00228 ( PDF )

00229 ( PDF )

00230 ( PDF )

00231 ( PDF )

00232 ( PDF )

00233 ( PDF )

00234 ( PDF )

00235 ( PDF )

00236 ( PDF )

00237 ( PDF )

00238 ( PDF )

00239 ( PDF )

00240 ( PDF )

00241 ( PDF )

00242 ( PDF )

00243 ( PDF )

00244 ( PDF )

00245 ( PDF )

00246 ( PDF )

00247 ( PDF )

00248 ( PDF )

00249 ( PDF )

00250 ( PDF )

00251 ( PDF )

00252 ( PDF )

00253 ( PDF )

00254 ( PDF )

00255 ( PDF )

00256 ( PDF )

00257 ( PDF )

00258 ( PDF )

00259 ( PDF )

00260 ( PDF )

00261 ( PDF )

00262 ( PDF )

00263 ( PDF )

00264 ( PDF )

00265 ( PDF )

00266 ( PDF )

00267 ( PDF )

00268 ( PDF )

00269 ( PDF )

00270 ( PDF )

00271 ( PDF )

00272 ( PDF )

00273 ( PDF )

00274 ( PDF )

00275 ( PDF )

00276 ( PDF )

00277 ( PDF )

00278 ( PDF )

00279 ( PDF )

00280 ( PDF )

00281 ( PDF )

00282 ( PDF )

00283 ( PDF )

00284 ( PDF )

00285 ( PDF )

00286 ( PDF )

00287 ( PDF )

00288 ( PDF )

00289 ( PDF )

00290 ( PDF )

00291 ( PDF )


Full Text



ENLARGEMENT AND EXTENSION OF THE GULF
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, INCLUDING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A BAREtAANNELA, D
PIPE LINE ACROSS NOIN, FLORIDA'S




BEFORE TE

COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SEVENTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON

H. R. 6999
A BILL TO PROMOTE THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AND TO
PROMPTLY FACILITATE AND PROTECT THE TRANSPORT
OF MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES NEEDFUL TO THE MILI-
TARY ESTABLISHMENT BY AUTHORIZING THE CON-
STRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A PIPE LINE AND A
NAVIGABLE BARGE CHANNEL ACROSS FLORIDA, THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN INLAND ROUTE FROM THE WEST-
ERN TERMINUS OF THIS CHANNEL TO THE PRESENT
EASTERN TERMINUS OF THE INTRACOASTAL WATER-
WAY, AND BY DEEPENING AND ENLARGING THE
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY FROM ITS PRESENT
EASTERN TERMINUS TO THE VICINITY
SOF THE MEXICAN BORDER

MAY 18 TO 22, 1942

Printed for the use of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors








UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72774 WASHINGTON : 1942



































COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS

JOSEPH J. MANSFIELD, Texas. Chairman
JOSEPH A. GAVAGAN, New York ALBERT E. CARTER, California
LEX GREEN, Florida FRANCIS D. CULKIN, New York
MARTIN F. SMITH. Washington GEORGE A. DONDERO, Michigan
WILLIAM T. SCHULTE, Indiana WILLIAM A. PITTENGER, Minnesota
HUGH PETERSON. Georgia ROBERT L. RODGERS, Pennsylvania
C. JASPER BELL, Missouri HOMER D. ANGELL, Oregon
GRAHAM A. BARDEN, North Carolina GEORGE H. BENDER, Ohio
JOHN E. RANKIN, Mississippi JOSHUA L. JOHNS, Wisconsin
FRANK W. BOYKIN, Alabama FRANK C. OSMERS, JR., New Jersey
JERRY VOORHIS, California LEONARD W. HALL, New York
MICHAEL J. KIRWAN, Ohio
ANTON F. MACIEJEWSKI, Illinois ANTHONY J. DIAMOND, Alaska
CLYDE T, ELLIS, Arkansas SAMUEL W. KING, Hawaii
ALFRED F. BEITER, New York
JOSEPH H. MCGANN, Clerk
















IL





'* .I









ENLARGEMENT AND EXTENSION OF THE INTRACOASTAL
WATERWAY SYSTEM


MONDAY, MAY 18, 1942
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS,
Washington, D. C.
The committee met at 10:30 a. m., Hon. Joseph J. Mansfield
(chairman) presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order.
Gentlemen, this hearing is called for the purpose of considering the
bill H. R. 6999 for the enlargement of the Intracoastal Waterway
on the Gulf coast, from the Mexican border to the west coast of the
Florida Peninsula, and the extension of the barge channel across
Florida to connect with the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway.
The project completed would constitute a continuous channel from
the Mexican border to Trenton, N. J., more than 2,400 miles in
length and of uniform width and depth ample to supply the pros-
pective needs of barge traffic.
For the immediate relief of the acute oil and gasoline situation in
the East, the bill provides for a temporary pipe line across Florida
to connect the Atlantic and Gulf Intracoastal Waterways. This
pipe line could be made available within a few months.
The urgency of these measures has been brought about by the
war conditions which have practically destroyed our coastwise ship-
ping. About 80 percent of this shipping consisted of oil and gaso-
line, which was transported in deep draft tanker ships. The As-
sociated Press announced last Monday that 191 of our American ships
have been destroyed by enemy submarines since the Pearl Harbor
incident. Additional to that, many American-owned tankers under
Panamanian registration have been destroyed.
The tankers vary in size and cost. They carry usually from 50,000
to 125,000 barrels of gasoline and cost from $2,500,000 to $3,000,000
each. The total loss in ships and cargoes might conservatively be
estimated at several hundred million dollars. But this loss in dol-
lars and cents is of little consequence as compared with the loss of
human life that has resulted.
All oil production in the Dutch East Indies is now in enemy
hands. Gasoline for our armies and Navy will have to be trans-
ported great distances across the seas. It will be a serious problem
to provide the necessary tankers for the service. Such ships could
not well be spared for domestic trade, even if there was no sub-
marine menace. In these circumstances inland methods of trans-
1







2 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

portation must of necessity be resorted to to supply our domestic
trade. These methods of course, consist of rail, highway, pipe line,
and inland waterways.
All of these forms of transportation are met with serious obstacles.
None of them have the necessary equipment, and to provide such
equipment would require great quantities of steel almost impossible
to obtain. The railroads are performing a great service, and the
poorly equipped inland waters are operating every barge and tow-
boat that can be obtained. Additional pipe lines are needed. Our
needs require a combination of all transportation methods.
The bill before us is not a panacea, of course, but will aid very
materially in relieving the situation. Gasoline is now being rationed
in the East, while the Southwest has a great surplus on hand that
cannot be disposed of. While the people of the East are enduring
great sacrifices, the people of the Southwest are suffering great finan-
cial loss. C'. ii ii ly, Congress should be able to provide in some
way for the transportation of essential commodities from one section
of our country to another.
This bill, if enacted, can afford at least partial relief in a com-
paratively short time. It will require but little, if any, new steel
for the equipment. I am informed that 10-inch pipe now in partial
use can be made available. One line of this pipe across Florida will
provide for the daily movement of about 60,000 gallons of gasoline.
If enough second-hand pipe can be made available to lay two, or pos-
sibly three lines in the same trench, it will relieve the acute situa-
tion in the East to a very'great extent.
If, and when, the 12-foot channel across Florida can be made
available to connect the Atlantic and Gulf intracoastal channels,
then this waterway, with the necessary equipment of wooden and
steel barges and towboats will be ample to supply all the oil and
gasoline requirements of the Atlantic seaboard. Not only will it
e ample for this purpose, but at much less cost to the consumers
than can be afforded by any other known method of transportation
except transportation by ocean tankers.
I have requested the attendance of some of our foremost experts
on transportation to give us the benefit of their knowledge and
advice and hope they may be able to lead us in working out the most
practical solution of our difficulties. I have requested Mr. Roy
Miller to introduce the gentlemen who are to be heard in presenting
the facts. I will first ask Mr. Miller to make a statement. He has
a deep interest in the subject matter to be considered and is thor-
oughly familiar with every detail of it.
STATEMENT OF ROY MILLER, ACTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, INTRA-
COASTAL CANAL ASSOCIATION OF LOUISIANA AND TEXAS

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I ap-
pear here this morning in my capacity as active vice president of
the Intracoastal Canal Association of Louisiana and Texas, an or-
ganization which for more than 30 years has been directing its efforts
toward the construction of an inland waterway from the Mississippi
River to the Rio Grande.







INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 3

The CHAIRMAN. All of that has been completed, except across
Florida, and from Corpus Christi to the Mexican border, a distance
of 128 miles.
After you get to Trenton, N. J., there is a gap across New Jersey,
where there is no water transportation.
Mr. Moore, can you'tell us about that?
STATEMENT OF J. HAMPTON MOORE, PRESIDENT, ATLANTIC
DEEPER WATERWAYS ASSOCIATION, PHILADELPHIA, PA.

Mr. MOORE. The part that is completed is from Trenton, N. J., to
Miami, Fla., a distance of 1,435 miles.
"Mr. RANKIN. What will it cost to dig a canal across that New
Jersey stretch?
Mr. MOORE. If we go back to the beginning, the first report esti-
mated the cost for a 25-foot canal across the State of New Jersey
at $45,000,000. For a 12-foot canal, which then was the first barge
canal proposed, the cost was $20,000,000. These are figures made by
General Black, when he was on a board of survey, and when General
Bixby reported that to the War Department, which was then pre-
sided over by Mr. Secretary Stimson, and which has been referred
to special boards ever since.
Mr. RANKIN. That is the first statement we have had made to this
committee as to the cost of this canal across New Jersey.
Mr. MOORE. The cost of a canal across New Jersey has been built
up-and I say that not unkindly, because of the increased cost of
labor, the increased cost of materials, and several other reasons, until
$200,000,000 is about the outside limit of the estimated cost at the
present time.
Mr. PITTENGER. The propaganda people have fought that construc-
tion for years, have they not?
Mr. MOORE. We have been advocating it for 30 years.
Mr. PITTENGER. And you have been opposed by a lot of systematic
propaganda?
Mr. MOORE. Yes; we have been opposed by interests of one kind or
another.
Mr. PITTENGER. Selfish interests.
Mr. MOORE. Transportation interests, in part, and the railroads had
a hand in the opposition to the canal across New Jersey.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Moore, I am informed by the clerk of the com-
mittee that there was a favorable report on this New Jersey canal
in 1913, for a 12-foot channel, and the estimated cost then was
$20,000,000.
In 1920 the estimated cost was $40,000,000 for a 12-foot channel.
Mr. MOORE. Yes; it has been going up steadily ever since, in a matter
of estimates.
One of the leaders in the oil business in my city, whose name cannot
very well be used at the present time, authorized me to say:
The east-coast section requires 1,500,000 barrels of oil per day. Of this amount
approximately 700,000 barrels per day are now being delivered by tank cars;
130,000 barrels are being delivered by pipe line; and 80,000 barrels are being pro-
duced in Pennsylvania and nearby fields, making a total of something like 910,000
barrels.








4 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

Therefore, there is at the present time a shortage of 600,000 barrels per day
which could be helped materially by tankers or barges if our waterways from
the Gulf to New York City were in a condition to handle it. The tanker supply
at the present time is nothing. Our waterways are either not completed or are
too shallow a draft to accommodate the tankers or even such barges of the type
that would normally use the New York State Barge Canal. If this 600,000 barrels
daily were now available, the rationing of gasoline would not be necessary to
the extent which the newspapers inform us it is to be carried.
We have on the Delaware River alone a capacity for 400,000 barrels per day, to
say nothing of the other million barrels that might be run in the Baltimore,
New York, and Boston areas. If we had adequate waterways from the Gulf of
Mexico to our Atlantic coast inland waterways, such a condition would not exist.
You may also make the statement that two of the largest refineries in Texas are
now shut down or virtually so, due to their inability to move their finished prod-
ucts to the east-coast area. So this situation that exists is not only depriving
the east coast of material that it wants, but is causing refineries in the Texas
area, who have plenty of crude, to shut down due to the piling up of finished
.products that cannot get to the points where they are useful and needed.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Mr. Miller, will you
continue with your statement ?

STATEMENT OF ROY MILLER, ACTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, INTRA-
COASTAL CANAL ASSOCIATION OF LOUISIANA AND TEXAS--
Continued

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, of course the completion of the canal
from Trenton, N. J., to New York is a part of the broad comprehensive
plan which, carried out, some day will give us a protected.inland water-
way from Maine to Mexico.
The presence here this morning, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the
committee, of a large number of people from the Southwest and the
Gulf coast is itself evidence of the importance of this legislation.
Such a project, as proposed in the bill introduced by the distin-
guished chairman of this committee, would certainly be a sound eco-
nomic proposition under any normal set of circumstances. It becomes
of tremendous importance at this time as a war measure, since it will
bring at least a modicum of relief in one of the most serious situations
that ever confronted our country.
Those of us who are here to support this measure do not offer it as a
special remedy, a single remedy or panacea, for this very, very serious
situation. We do think, however, and we believe the testimony which
will be presented will show that it does offer at least one very econom-
ical method of relief which can be obtained probably in a shorter
period of time than any other proposal.
We have down in the great Southwest, the terminus of this great
inland waterway system, the major portion of the oil production of
the United States. Texas today is producing nearly half of the total
oil supply of the country, and there is within the confines of the State
over 52 percent of all of the petroleum reserves of the Nation.
As a member of our Texas Railroad Commission said recently, we
are being drowned in gasoline and oil down there, while in this part
of the country there is a dearth of that very necessary and essential
commodity.
As you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee know, the
proposal in the bill before you does not involve so much new thought
and material as one might first observe. As a matter of fact, there is







INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 5

now before this committee, in fact it is in the pending omnibus bill,
a recommendation made by the engineers more than 2 years ago, con-
tained in House Document 230, Seventy-sixth Congress, first session,
for the enlargement of the Intracoastal Waterway of Louisiana and
Texas from its present dimensions of a 9-foot depth with a 100-foot
bottom width, to a 12-foot depth and a bottom width of 125 feet, the
estimated cost of that improvement being $5,200,000. That item was
also in the river and harbor bill passed nearly 2 years ago, which met
with a Presidential veto.
It is my understanding that there is now being considered by the
Board of Engineers-and I think I am correctly informed-a pro-
posal to enlarge the Intracoastal Waterway from New Orleans east,
so that, assuming, if we may, that that proposal will receive the same
consideration as the enlargement of the canal west of the Mississippi,
there will be nothing new in this bill, so far as the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway from Corpus Christi, Tex., to St. Joe, Fla., is concerned.
There is also in the river and harbor bill which your committee has
reported an item for the completion of the Intracoastal Waterway
from Corpus to the Rio Grande Valley, on the basis of a 9-foot depth.
That report is in House Document 402, Seventy-seventh Congress,
first session.
So that, so far as the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway is concerned, as
contained in the bill now before you, the only new proposal is the
enlargement of the canal from Corpus Christi to the valley, a dis-
tance of 129 miles, so that the entire project might have a depth of
12 feet.
The CHAIRMAN. In order to make it uniform.
Mr. MILLER. To make it uniform; yes.
I might say in this connection that 2 years ago, when the commerce
on the Intracoastal Waterway of Louisiana and Texas was probably
less than half what it was last year, the engineers recommended the
greater depth, so that the then existing commerce might be handled
more expeditiously and more economically.
Mr. DONDERO. What would there be at the southern end of the
canal which would justify the extension of it to the Rio Grande?
What commodity would there be there ?
Mr. MILLER. We have here this morning from the Rio Grande
Valley four prominent and well-informed gentlemen who will appear
later and who can give you that information very much in detail.
We have Mr. F. M. Hofmokel, director of the port at Brownsville;
Mr. James E. Bowie, director of the port at Port Isabel; Mr. Dan
Murphy, of Harlingen; and Mr. John H. Shary, of Mission.
"The information which they will submit will be, not only intensely
interesting, but will show the really tremendous tonnage which will
be handled by the canal in and out of the Rio Grande Valley.
The CHAIRMAN. We had a hearing nearly a year ago on the ports
embraced in the omnibus bill.
Mr. MILLER. Not only will the canal provide, a cheaper method of
transport for the commodities produced in the valley, but it will
relieve greatly the strain upon the railroads, because all of the com-
merce of that section has been forced to go to the railroads, due to
the practical cessation of all ocean shipping.








6 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

Mr. CULKIN. What is the source of the gasoline in Texas? Is that
north of Corpus Christi?
Mr. MILLER. It is all along the Texas coast. There are oil refineries
even down in the Rio Grande Valley.
Mr. CULKIN. Where is the major source?
Mr. MILLER. You mean refineries?
Mr. CULKIN. Of gasoline.
Mr. MILLER. Refineries are located in the valley at Corpus Christi,
at Ingleside, in the Houston area, in the Sabine district, and many
in the interior of Texas.
The CHAIRMAN. How many counties have we in Texas ?
Mr. MILLER. We have 254.
The CHAIRMAN. And all but 21 are producing oil.
Mr. MILLER. I think Colonel Thompson of our railroad commis-
sion told us that all except 21 are producing oil.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up too much of the commit-
tee's time because we have many expert witnesses here who desire
to be heard.
As I was saying, when the recommendation was made by the
Chief of Engineers 2 years ago that the Intracoastal Waterway of
Louisiana and Texas should be enlarged to a depth of 12 feet with
a bottom width of 125 feet, the amount of commerce upon which
that recommendation was based was less than half of the tonnage
handled in the waterway last year.
I desire, at this point, Mr. Chairman, to put in the record some
figures which I have just obtained from the office of the Chief of
Engineers showing the total tonnage handled by the Intracoastal
Waterway for the calendar year 1941. On that part of the canal
which lies between the Mississippi River and the Sabine River the
commerce totaled 13,806,255 tons, while the Waterway in Texas
handled 11,522,538 tons, or a total for the entire canal of 25,328,793
tons for the calendar year 1941.
I call attention to the fact that when this committee adopted the
Intracoastal Canal project and placed it in the River and Harbor
Act of 1925, the action of the committee was based largely upon a
report and the personal testimony before your committee of the
late General Goethals, who was the consulting engineer of 'our
association. He estimated at that time the immediate potential
tonnage of the canal at around 6,000,000 tons.
He then went on to say that when the entire inland waterway
system of the Mississippi Valley was completed, including the Chi-
cago and Illinois waterway, the potential tonnage possibilities of the
Intracoastal Canal would not be less than 12,000,000 tons annually.
And now even that very generous estimate has more than doubled.
SOf the total of 11,522,538 tons on the canal in Texas last year, 10,-
306,337 tons were handled just between the Sabine and the Houston-
Galveston district, a distance of about 85 miles; but that part of the
waterway serves the greatest petroleum refining section in the Nation,
if not in the world. Between Galveston and Corpus Christi, a distance
of 200 miles only 1,216,301 tons were handled because the canal was
not completed. As a matter of fact, it was not finally completed south
of Galveston until we celebrated its opening at Corpus Christi, a
month ago today.







INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 7

So, with the tremendous burden which this acute transportation
situation has placed upon our intracoastal waterway, I venture the
assertion that if Ie.-i-l-l. the facilities, towboats and barges, are pro-
vided, together with sufficient channel depth and width, the canal
within a very few years will be handling an even much larger tonnage
than the 25,000,000 tons it carried last year.
I would like to close with this observation: Mr. Chairman, there
can be no question that if we now had a completed, protected inland
waterway from the Rio Grande Valley across Florida, connected with
the existing 12-foot channel, from Jacksonville, Fla., to Trenton, N. J.,
with sufficient floating equipment, this very disastrous transportation
situation which now confronts us would not exist.
Many people will say, "Well, it will take some time to build a canal
across Florida." Of course it will,
Mr. HALL. How long will it take ?
"Mr. MILLER. I would prefer to have the engineers give you that
information.
Mr. RANKIN. If you build it upon the plan laid down in the river
and harbor bill and make it a 12-foot barge canal it would take 15
months.
Mr. HALL. How long would it take to build a pipe line across there?
Mr. MILLER. You will have some experts who will appear later and
who I think will testify that that can be done in 120 days after
authority is given to go ahead.
Mr. HALL. I asked that question for this reason. It seems to me
that the vital subject today has to do with oil and gasoline, and in
view of the fact that this bill provides for a pipe line and barge canal,
I was wondering whether we should not separate those items and go
to work immediately upon the pipe-line proposition.
The CHAIRMAN. That is, put the program for the pipeline ahead
of the other, so that it can go into effect at once.
Mr. HALL. I was wondering if we could not go ahead on the propo-
sition for a pipe line and handle that as a separate proposition so we
could get that behind us. It seems to me that is the vital thing today,
so far as the 17 eastern seaboard States are concerned. It seems to me
those projects can be divided without any trouble, and if the com-
mitte could go to work on the proposition for a pipe line, we can take
as much testimony as we desire about that, and the work could start
without delay.
The CHAIRMAN. As to the pipe line alone, this committee would not
have jurisdiction.
Mr. DONDERO. Congress passed an act last year authorizing the con-
struction of pipe lines at once, if the President deems it necessary,
without any further authorization from us.
Mr. PITTENGER. Congressman Dondero asked practically the ques-
tion I had in mind. I was going to ask the witness this question in
reference to this pipe line, but I want to say this, so that I will not
be misunderstood.
The CHAIRMAN. That is for temporary relief.
Mr. PITTENGER. I have never been antagonistic to the Intracoastal
Waterway system. I think that would be a mighty fine thing. But
I want to say that you would not be in this difficulty now on the
Atlantic seaboard if you had not opposed the St. Lawrence seaway







"8 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

project; you would be getting your oil from Chicago and Cleveland
down the St. Lawrence through a 12-foot channel, if you had agreed
to that, and if the Senate had ratified the treaty in 1934.
Speaking very plainly, but kindly, it seems to ne you cut off your
noses to spite your faces. A lot of other folks do these things.
I expect to go along with the program for the development of water-
ways and harbors, but I would like to have the witness tell me why
the President does not have as much authority now to build a pipe
line across Florida as he had to build the Alaska Highway. Why all
of this subterfuge? Why not put the Intracoastal Waterway plan
through here, with the canal across Florida, which is already in the
river and harbor bill? Why make fish of one and fowl of another?
They are all meritorious.
SThese newspaper boys will talk about "pork," and other people
will talk about "pork." They have made up their minds that every-
thing in the bill is not pork at all; it is lamb, or some other kind of an
animal.
The CHAIRMAN. It is not even a congressional pension.
Mr. PrrIENGER. No, it is not.
Mr. MILER. As the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota, Mr.
Pittenger, knows, I do not disagree with him. If I had been a
Member of Congress instead of a very ordinary layman, I would have
been raising cain for more than a year to try to get a river and harbor
bill passed. But you are up against a practical difficulty there.
I do know this, Mr. Pittenger, that this bill is directed toward a
very critical situation. In reference to the service which might have
been rendered by the St. Lawrence seaway, I repeat what I said before,
that there is no one single remedy for this particular grave, situation.
It is going to take the fullest possible utilization of all the trans-
portation facilities we possess, supplemented by the greatest possible
utilization of all of our inland waterways.
Let me say here that I think the railroads are doing a magnificent
job.
I think however that testimony will be presented to show that the
railroads have probably reached the limit of their capacity in meeting
this oil and gasoline situation, and that as the fruits of our great war
production program begin to ripen in greater abundance, we will be
confronted and we are now, with the only bottleneck to victory, and
that is inadequate transportation.
Mr. RANKIN. As long as the Government uses and operates it, a pipe
line is all right to the extent of its capacity-
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Rankin, it will serve the purpose until a better
means can be provided.
Mr. RANKIN. Let me finish my statement. But the canal is neces-
sary not only for the present situation but for permanent use, for the
simple reason that a pipe line is necessarily a monopoly concern.
The Government, or the big oil companies, must monopolize the use
of the line, as they do also in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma,
and Mississippi, the great oil-producing section of the country. There
are large numbers of independent producers that should also use
the barge line when it is finished.
Mr. MILLER. That is very true.








INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 9

.Mr. RANKIN. That is one reason I shall insist on this barge line
going along in this bill.
Mr. GREEN. Your observation about oil is most interesting. I have
the impression that the oil production in Texas, or the amount that is
available there now, is about one-half the world's supply, as well as
more than one-half the United States' supply.
Mr. RANKIN. Texas produces about 1,500,000 barrels per day, and I
think you will find that since Mississippi has been broifght in, the
production of that area is something like 800,000 barrels per day.
Mr. MILLER. At any rate, the oil production of Texas and Louisi-
ana, which would be immediately served by this project, certainly
represents a very substantial part of the fuel supply available to the
allied nations.
Mr. GREEN. I am opposed to separating the waterway from the
pipe line, because this waterway or barge line, in particular across
Florida, has been blocked by opposed interests, and those interests
that have blocked it are responsible for the loss of that $300,000,000
of shipping, as well as the loss of life, that has occurred in that
transportation recently. It will not take a long time to build the
barge canal.
Mr. RANKIN. The simultaneous beginning of the construction of
both would not impede the construction of the pipe line.
The CHAIRMAN. The oil consumption on the Atlantic seaboard is
reported to be 1,600,000 barrels per day, and the present means of
transportation available will only take about one-half of that amount.
Mr. MILLER. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. And the railroads have, also, reached their limit,
without tremendous expenditures of steel so badly needed for other
purposes.
Mr. MILLER. We will later present some expert testimony along that
line. I would like to conclude my statement by offering some matter
for the record.
Mr. RANKIN. Right in connection with Judge Mansfield's state-
ment, as I understand it, this pipe line across there from St. Joe to
Jacksonville would carry only about 50,000 barrels per day.
Mr. MILLEn. We will have some experts to testify on all those
points. I would like to conclude my statement by placing two or three
statements in the record. First, I desire to put in the record a quota-
tion from a very able address delivered by Lt. Gen. Eugene Reybold,
Chief of Engineers, at Corpus Christi, on Saturday, April 18, 1942, in
reference to the cost of moving oil by various methods.
Mr. DONDERO. Was that this year?
Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir; just a month ago.
(The quotation referred to is as follows:)
A moment ago I mentioned the specific problem of transporting oil of the
Southwest to the consuming centers of the East and Northeast. This can be
accomplished by tank car, by ocean-going tanker, by shallow-draft barge, and
by pipe line. Ordinarily, the method of transportation chosen would be dic-
tated by economic considerations. If it costs (as it does) 8 mills per ton-mile
to move oil by rail, and 1% mills per ton-mile to move oil by deep-draft
tanker, it goes without saying that most oil will move by tanker. And if it
costs (as it does) 3 mills per ton-mile to move oil by pipe line, there never
will be many pipe lines competing directly with deep-draft tankers. Those
are considerations which enter normal peacetime decisions. Obviously, they
do not take into account a situation which finds enemy submarines operating








10 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

off the flanks of the long sea lanes used by the deep-draft tankers. In other
words, normal peacetime considerations are for the moment out of the window.
Transportation by shallow-draft barge brings us back to the subject of in-
land waterways-and to the artery which we are dedicating today, this exten-
sion to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
*** *
A few moments ago I quoted some figures for the normal cost of moving
oil by rail, by deep-sea tanker, and by pipe line. Let me complete that set
of figures by stating that an average cost for the transport of oil by shallow-
draft barge over long hauls is 2 to 21/ mills per ton-mile. You will recall
that this it slightly in excess of the cost by deep-sea tanker; but below the
cost by either pipe line or rail. In fact, the cost of barge transportation is
so low as to be very attractive at any time. I am sure that even under peace-
time conditions, we would have witnessed a constant increase in oil traffic on
inland waterways.
Mr. MILLER. I also desire to insert in the record an Associated
Press article appearing on the front page of the Washington Post
of today, with reference to the sinking of ships on the Atlantic
coast and in the Gulf of Mexico since Pearl Harbor.
(The matter referred to is as follows:)
[Washington Post, May 18, 1942]

ATLANTIC SINKING SINCE PEARL HARBOR TOTAL 191
(By the Associated Press)

Long-range Axis submarines knifing at Allied supply lines .in the Atlantic
sank 16 United Nations vessels, it was officially reported last week-boosting
announced Allied sinkings in that area since Pearl Harbor to a total of 191
ships.
Three other merchantmen were heavily damaged but reported still afloat-
two having been towed safely to port and the third last seen burning fiercely
and drifting out to sea.
The tabulation:
Since
Week of Pearl
May 11-27 Harbor
Off the United States_ ---------------9 101
Off Canada------------------------------------ 2 26
In the Caribbean -...------------------ 2 48
In the Gulf of Mexico--------------- --------- ------------- 2 4
Off South America-------------- ---- ------ 1 12
Total ------------------------------ 16 191
The CHAIRMAN. What is the total number mentioned in that press
report?
Mr. MILLER. One hundred and ninety-one.
The CHAIRMAN. Does that include all of them?
Mr. MILLER. That includes 101 off the United States, 26 off Canada,
48 in the Caribbean, 4 in the Gulf of Mexico, and 12 off South America.
The CHAIRMAN. The total was what?
Mr. MILLER. One hundred and ninety-one since Pearl Harbor.
Mr. JOHNS. I was very much interested in that statement, and I
intended to ask how many were sunk. Can you give an estimate of the
value of the ships and the oil lost ?
Mr. MILLER. I cannot give that, but there will be some other gentle-
men appearing later who doubtless can.
The CHAIRMAN. I recently talked with Admiral Lane with regard
to tankers, and he told me that they cost from $2,500,000 to $3,000,000
each. The vast majority sunk have been tankers of large size. Those








INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 11

tankers carry from 75,000 to 125,000 barrels of oil or gasoline. Small
ones operating in the Gulf carry about 50,000 barrels, and it would
cost a little over $2,000,00Qto build a small one. As for cargo ships, it
is hard to state what their cost would be under war conditions.
Mr. MILLER. I would like also to place in the record a copy of a letter
dated September 3, 1941, addressed to Rear Admiral Emory S. Land,
Chairman of the Maritime Commission, by the chairman of this com-
mittee, calling attention to the very proposal which is now embodied
in the bill you are now considering,
(The letter referred to is as follows:)
SEPTEMBER 3, 1941.
Rear Admiral EMORY S. LAND,
Chairman, Maritime Commission,
Commerce Department Building, Washington, D. C.
DEAR ADMIRAL LAND: I have been much interested in the newspaper accounts
of your testimony with reference to transporting gasoline to the eastern sea-
board of the country givetn before the Senate Special Committee Investigating
Shortage of Gasoline.
Apparently you advocate tf.i,-l.t-rl'r oil in seagoing concrete barges towed
by tankers, this in order to conserve for defense purposes the steel that would
be required for a pipe line from the Oklahoma oil fields to Greensboro, N. 0.
Have you given consideration to moving gasoline from the Texas Gulf coast
and from Baton Ruuge, La., via the intracoastal canal?
There are gasoline refineries at Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Beaumont, Port
Arthur, and Houston, Tex. The oil reserves stored in Texas, aggregating 52
percent of the oil reserves of the entire country, feed oil by pipe lines into
the refineries on the coast of Texas. A pipe line from Oklahoma feeds oil
into the refineries of the Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey at Baton Rouge, La.
There is now an intracoastal waterway with depths from 9 to 12 feet from
Corpus Christi, Tex., to Apalachicola, Fla., and from Jacksonville, Fla., up
our eastern coast to Trenton, N. J. From Philadelphia and the Delaware
River barge traffic can go outside up to New York and Boston. Baton Rouge,
La. is, of course, connected to the Gulf and to the Intracoastal Waterway by
the Mississippi River. Gasoline could be transported in canal barges from
Texas and Baton Rouge to the eastern end of the Gulf Coast Intracoastal
Canal near Apalachicola, Fla., transferred there to a new pipe line or to
railroad tank cars for transportation to Jacksonville, Fla., and be carried in
canal barges from Jacksonville north up the eastern seaboard of the United
States. There is a railroad from the terminus of the Gulf Coast Waterway
to Jacksonville, or a relatively short pipe line could be constructed. The
cities along the intracoastal canals are Galveston, New Orleans, Mobile, Jack-
sonville, Savannah, Charleston, Wilmington (N. C.), Norfolk, Washington, Bal-
timore, Philadelphia, and Trenton.
Cities in- the Mississippi Valley that can now be supplied by means of its
waterways are Vicksburg, Memphis, St. Louis, Rock Island, Minneapolis, Chi-
cago, Cairo, Nashville, Chattanooga, Louisville, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh.
The inland waterways referred to above with a depth of 9 feet or more
have an almost unlimited capacity of carrying barges. A considerable quan-
tity of gasoline is now carried north from Baton Rouge by barges on the
Mississippi River, but a great deal more could be carried on this river, on its
tributaries, and on the intracoastal waterways mentioned. I suggest that
you consider building barges and towboats for our inland waterways. In many
respects inland-waterway transportation has advantages over seagoing trans-
portatioh for defense purposes, and an almost unlimited number of depots could
be located along our inland waterways.
I enclose herewith a map showing the principal inland waterways of the
eastern half of the United States.
Yours sincerely,
J. J. MANSFIELD, Chairman.
Mr. MILLER. I would also like to include in the record a letter dated
October 2, 1941, addressed to Hon. Harold L. Ickes, Administrator,
Oil Administration, by the chairman of this committee.








12 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

I also desire to offer a letter of the same date addressed by the
chairman of this committee to Mr. J. J. Pelley, president of the Asso-
ciation of American Railroads.
(The letters referred to are as follows:)
OOTOBEa 2, 1941.
Hon. HAROLD L. ICKES,
Administrator, Oil Administration,
Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C.
DEAR MR. ICKEs: I have been reading in the newspapers with a great deal of
interest wlat you and Mr. Pelley have been saying about the oil and gasoline
situation in the East.
In order to remedy conditions and, at the same time, avoid the large expendi-
tures of money and steel necessary for a long pipe line half way across the
continent, you could connect the Gulf Coast Inland Waterway and the Atlantic
Coast Inland Waterway with a pipe line from the vicinity of Fort St. Joe, Fla.,
to Jacksonville, Fla.
I am informed that the Southeastern Pipe Line Co. at Atlanta, Ga., estimates
that the above-mentioned pipe line could be constructed in from 30 to 90 days,
would be 235 miles long, would require 50,000 tons of steel, and would cost about
$12,000,000. With such a pipe line an additional 200,000 barrels of oil or gasoline
per day could be moved from the Gulf Coast to the Atlantic seaboard over the
intracoastal waterways. We will never be able to handle the tonnages required
for our defense program until we make full use of our waterways which have
been planned and executed to meet such demands as we now have.
Yours sincerely,
J. J. MANSFIELD, Chairman.

OoCroBE 2, 1941.
Mr. J. J. PELLEY,
President, Association of American Railroads, Washington, D. C.
DEAR MR. PELLEY: I have been reading in the newspapers with a great deal of
interest what you have been saying about railroad tank cars being available for
the relief of the oil and gasoline shortages along the Atlantic seaboard, and I see
in the papers this morning that there are not available as many tank cars as there
was thought to be in the first place.
You could solve your dilemma by hauling oil and gasoline only across Florida.
In this way it could be transported by barge from the Gulf coast to Port St. Joe,
Fla. From this point the tank-car service could move via the Apalachicola
Northern Railroad to River Junction, Fla., or to Climax, Ga., and from River
Junction to Jacksonville via the Seaboard ,Air Line, or from Climax to Jackson-
ville via the Atlantic Coast Line. One of these routes is 287 miles long and the
other is 317 miles long. With some additional terminal facilities (costing about
$2,700,000) an additional 200,000 barrels per day could be transported via this com-
bination rail-and-water route from the Gulf coast to the Atlantic seaboard.
Obviously, a much smaller number of tank cars would be required to move oil
about 300 miles than would be required to move the oil halfway across the
continent.
Yours truly,
J. J. MANSFIELD, Chairman.
Mr. MILLER. I also offer for the record a letter dated March 11,
1942, addressed to the President of the United States by the chairman
of this committee, and the President's letter in answer thereto, dated
March 25, 1942.
(The letters referred to are as follows:)
COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS,
HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U. S.,
Washington, D. C., March 11, 1942.
THE PRESIDENT,
The White House.
MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: YOU are, of course, familiar with the increasing use
of our inland waterways due to the rapidly expanding production program and
the almost complete cessation of coastwise steamship services. The tonnage









INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 13

handled by our inland waterways during the past year set an all-time record,
and such information as .is available indicates a continued increase.
It is my understanding that practically all available equipment of towboats and
barges is now in use and that great need exists for additional equipment of this
character. May I not, therefore, suggest for your consideration that steps be
taken immediately to increase these facilities. It is-my considered judgment that
if additional floating equipment for use upon our inland waterways is provided,
it will go a long way toward relieving the acute transportation situation which
many of us fear is certain to result in the very near future.
As you of course know, large quantities of heavy commodities vital to the na-
tional defense, such ,i i" l 1 I.l-iu and its products, sulfur, etc., are produced along
the Gulf coast, and especially in Texas, commodities which heretofore have moved
to consuming centers along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts by ocean-going vessels.
The Intracoastal Waterway, which skirts the Gulf coast from Pensacola to Cor-
pus Christi, Tex., is now handling a tremendous tonnage in these commodities, and
the Mississippi River system, with its connections to the Pittsburgh district and
the Great Lakes through the Chicago, Ill., waterway, is rendering valuable service
in the distribution of these commodities. It is my information, however, that the
floating equipment presently available is being utilized to its fullest capacity.
"I take the liberty of submitting this suggestion for your consideration in the
hope that it may offer a modicum of relief in the situation which impends.
In this connection, I also wish to call-your attention to the suggestion I had the
pleasure of making to you personally several weeks ago, that a barge canal across
Florida connecting the Gulf intracoastal waterway system with the Atlantic in-
tracoastal panal system, reaching from Jacksonville, Fla., to Trenton, N. J., would
provide a protected inland canal all the way from the Southwest to the great
industrial and commercial centers of the Northeast.
With the assurance of my highest esteem, I am,
Sincerely yours,
J. J. MANSFIELD, Chairman.
(The President's encouraging reply is as follows:)
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Washington, March 25, 1942.
Hon. J. J. MANSFIELD,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
MY DEAR MR. MANSFIELD: I have your letter of March 11, which interests me
very much as I am in accord with your thoughts that the inland waterways dur-
ing the present emergency should be utilized to greatest possible degree. I am
further inclined to agree with you that such a program would require the con-
struction of additional equipment, as my investigation confirms your opinion
that there is not now sufficient equipment to accommodate the available tonnage.
The program presents some problems such as obtaining necessary strategic ma-
terials, providing construction facilities, and in some instances dredging of
waterways.
It is a pleasure to advise you that this subject has already been taken actively
in hand and is being carefully studied by the Office of Defense Transportation, the
War Shipping Administrator, and others. I am hopeful that something construc-
tive may be worked out without undue delay.
Very sincerely yours,
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT.
Mr. MILLER. In the letter to the President, the distinguished chair-
man of this committee called attention to the service which might be
rendered the Nation by the utilization of our inland waterways, and
he pointed out, also, the necessity for additional towboats and barges.
The President, in his acknowledgment, expressed hearty agreement
with the statements made by your chairman, and advised that steps
were being taken to investigate the proposals he made.
There are many people here from Texas, Louisiana, and the Gulf
coast who are vitally interested in this matter. I hope that they may
have the indulgence of the committee and that, regardless of the
amount of time consumed, the committee will be patient and give them







14 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

ample opportunity to be heard. Texas is not only a long distance from
Washington, but it is rather difficult to get here now. This is almost
a matter of life and'death to a great industry which has been the
foundation and backbone of the progress and development of the
Southwest during the past 10 or 15 years.
Mr. RANKIN. One thing that I think is puzzling the committee, and
I know it is puzzling to me, is the necessity for this change of route,
and I am wondering if it would be better to have a statement from
the engineer officers on that question, so we may get that proposi-
tion fixed in our minds first.
The CHAIRMAN. There is no route designated in the bill.
Mr. RANKIN. I understand there is a proposal to change the route
of the canal so that, instead of going across Florida, after driving
. down the St. Johns River to Fort Inglis, a distance of probably 85
miles, it will cut across to St. Joe, which is a distance of about 280
miles. The only excuse I can see for that-and that is what I want
to ask the engineers about-is that there is a question of whether or
not the other route through the open Gulf could be safely used all
the time. As I understand it, the route over to St. Joe could be used
by barges practically all the time, and I understand that for 15 days,
perhaps, the route first proposed through the Gulf of Mexico could
not be navigated by those barges. By using the Gulf route from the
St. Johns to Port Inglis you would not only save a great deal in dis-
tance and time, but a great deal of cost could be saved by using that
route which is provided for in the rivers and harbors bill.
Mr. MILLER. I think I can state the position of the proponents on
that: We are here for the sole purpose of trying to show, not only
the economic justification for this project, but the great emergency
which exists and which cries ouit for immediate relief. With respect
to the particular route that the eiv- iLri.-I ;, ,Ii-',. we take the position,
as we always do, that whatever the Army engineers recommend, in
our judgment, is the thing that should be done.
Mr. RANKIN. I appreciate that, and am inclined to follow the en-
gineers, but I am a little confused as to the necessity for this change
of route, and I wanted to question the engineers about it.
Mr. MILLER. I think I state the case correctly when I say that.
The matter was submitted to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and
Harbors several weeks ago, by resolution of this committee, and our
thought was that li the receipt of the Board's report we might
come before your committee and make a record. General Reybold,
the chief of engineers, is here and I hope will make some recommenda-
tion.
The CHAIRMAN. The bill under consideration does not provide that
tankers would navigate the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic Ocean,
but would use this inland route.
Mr. RANKIN. I SO understood, and that is why I wanted to question
the engineers concerning this proposed change. I am sure that I
would like to have some information about it, and I feel that the other
members of the committee would like to inquire into the desirability
or necessity of changing the course of this route.
Mr. MILLER. I know that your usual procedure is to first hear from
departmental officials and then hear other witnesses. I notice that
General Reybold is here.








INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 15

Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Miller, I did not hear all your statement. Did you
say anything about a temporary pipe line to give this service across
Florida?
Mr. MILLER. I did not go into that in detail, because we have some
specially qualified witnesses to testify about that.
Mr. ANGELL. This temporary pipe line across Florida could serve
the purpose until such time as the barge canal was ready?
Mr. MILLER. Until the barge route is completed; yes, sir.
Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Miller, what would be the cost of that pipe line?
Mr. MILLER. I would prefer not to answer that, because we have
witnesses here who are in a better position to testify about that.
Mr. PITTENGER. The question of a temporary pipe line, I under-
stand, will be cleared up later. Is there not an existing provision
of law under which the Reconstruction Finance Corporation can
make a loan of money with which to start building a pipe line
across there? This question of deepening the channel is in connec-
tion with the rivers and harbors bill, and this is another proposition.
I do not see any reason for taking up the matter piecemeal.
Mr. CULxIN. The gentleman has heard that the W. P. B. does
not want steel used for this purpose.
Mr. PITTENGER. I certainly have heard about it.
Mr. HALL. General Reybold is present, and I -ui '.--t he might
answer those questions.
General REYBOLD. I understand that there is an act authorizing
a pipe line across Florida.
The CHAIRMAN. I would hardly say there is an act authorizing
that. Section 2 of an act approved July 30, 1941, provides that-
Whenever the President finds that the construction of any pipe line for the
transportation and/or distribution of petroleum or petroleum products moving
in interstate commerce, or the extension or completion of any such pipe
line already wholly or partly constructed, is or may be necessary for national
defense purposes, he shall by proclamation declare such finding.
Then, section 3 provides that--
In case the construction or extension or completion of any such pipe line is
undertaken otherwise than as provided in section 4, the person or persons
undertaking such construction, extension, or completion, may acquire such land
or interests in land, including rights-of-way or easements, by the exercise of
the right of eminent domain, as, in the opinion of the President, may be
necessary for such purposes, and for purposes of operation and maintenance
of pipe lines.
Mr. HALL. It seems to me that gives complete authority.
Mr. CTLKIN. Does not the gentleman know that the W. P. B. has
veto power in this matter?
"Mr. HALL. I do not think that the W. P. B. would veto the construc-
tion of a pipe line across Florida if the President should proclaim
that it is necessary.
Mr. VooRHIS. Can anybody tell me why a pipe line has not been
started from the Middle West?
Mr. CULKIN. The W. P. B. will not grant priority for the materials
necessary for the pipe-line construction.
Mr. HALL. Then, what does this bill do? How does this bill change
the situation?
Mr. DONDERO. If we have an act authorizing the building of pipe
lines now by the President.
72774-42--2






16 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

Mr. CULKIN (interposing). The situation has changed since then.
Those questions were decided by the W. P. B. originally, but the pro-
ponents of this measure are hopeful that the W. P. B. will see the
light soon.
Mr. RANKIN. These are questions to be taken up by the committee
in executive session. We have a number of witnesses here to be heard,
and I think we should hear General Reybold.
The CHAIRMAN. We will hear General Reybold at this time.

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. EUGENE REYBOLD, CHIEF OF
ENGINEERS, UNITED; STATES ARMY
General REYBOLD. Mr. Chairman, I have a brief statement that I
have prepared and, with your permission, I would like to present
that first.
The CHAIRMAN. All right, General; you may proceed.
General REYBOLD. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to appear before
the Rivers and Harbors Committee in connection with your hearings
on H. R. 6999. I must state at the outset, however, that time has not
permitted me to ascertain the relationship of this legislation to the
program of the President and, accordingly, my testimony does not
involve any commitment as to such relationship.
It is the purpose of the bill to authorize-
(a) The construction of a barge canal across the State of Florida
extending from a point on the St. Johns River to the Gulf of Mexico.
(b) The construction of a canal inside the coast line of the State
from the western terminus of the barge canal to the eastern terminus
of the present intracoastal waterway in the vicinity of Apalachee Bay,
and the enlargement of this waterway to the present western limit at
Corpus Christi, Tex., and its extension of the vicinity of the Mexican
border.
(c) The construction of a pipe line, with necessary terminal facil-
ities across Florida from the vicinity of Appalachicola Bay to the
vicinity of Jacksonville.
The proposed barge canal would provide a waterway between the
Gulf coast and the Atlantic seaboard. Construction of an inshore
canal to connect the western terminus of the projected barge canal
with the eastern terminus of the proposed intercoastal waterway in
the vicinity of Apalachicola Bay, and the enlargement and extension
of this waterway as proposed in the bill would, in connection with
the barge canal, provide a continuous and improved 12-foot waterway
from Port Isabel, Tex., to Jacksonville, Fla. Jacksonville is the south-
ern terminus of an existing inland waterway having a minimum depth
of 12 feet and extending north to Trenton, N. J. The value in time
of war of an improved through inland waterway from Port Isabel to
Trenton with minimum depth of 12 feet is believed sufficient to warrant
construction of these improvements. It is my opinion that such
improvements should be authorized by Congress now and that con-
struction should be initiated at the earliest date on which work can
be commenced without interfering with construction directly con-
nected 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.







INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 17

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 exist-
ing 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 Atlan-
tic 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 carry-
ing 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 which would have to
be laid across Florida to make the connection. As the Gulf Intra-
coastal Waterway is presently improved only as far east as Carrabelle,
and since that port is suitable for tankers as well as barges, our plan
contemplates a pipe line from that point to Jacksonville, a distance of
185 miles. 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.
Mr. RANKIN. You referred to Carrabelle, Fla. ?
General REYBOLD. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. Will you point that out on the map ?
General REYBOLD. Carrabelle is over here [indicating].
Mr. RANKIN. Carrabelle is how far east of Port St. Joe ? Where
is Port St. Joe located ?
General REYBOLD. It is in the same vicinity, about 65 miles distant.
Mr. RANKIN. I understood you to say that this provides for a route
clear around to the Mexican border ?
General REYBOLD. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. From Carrabelle or St. Joe down to Port Inglis, which
is the terminus of the Florida Canal, is open Gulf, is it not?
General REYBOLD. No, sir; this bill provides for an inland water-
way.
Mr. RANKIN. I understand that it is to be an inland waterway. It
extends from Carrabelle all the way to the Mexican border.
General REYBOLD. That is correct.
Mr. RANKIN. But when you come to Carrabelle, you would come out
in the open Gulf in order to go to Port Inglis ?
General REYBOLD. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. Are conditions such that it is necessary to build the
Florida Canal between those points, or could they use that Gulf
route now?
General REYBOLD. You could, of course, use the Gulf route, except
that it is hazardous. You could use it except for the hazards of Gulf
traffic.
Mr. RANKIN. How extensive are those hazards, or for how long dur-
ing the year would it be practicable to operate a barge line on that
route?
General REYBOLD. I have been informed that there is very little time
lost there in navigating the Gulf.







18 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

Mr. RANKIN. Someone told me that there were only about 15 days
in the year during which it was not perfectly safe for barges to navi-
gate that route. Mr. Green, who inhabits that part of the globe,.
says that it can be used every day during the year. He ought to know
because he has been through a campaign down there.
The CHAIRMAN. I have spent more than 60 years on the Gulf, and
I know that it is very hazardous.
Mr. RANKIN. I want to know whether it could be done by following
a line right across the Florida Strait, which would cut the distance
down almost one-third, or about one-third-that is, starting at Port
Inglis, and following the route of the proposed Florida ship canal.
General REYBOLD. Do you mean by using the open Gulf across here
[indicating] instead of coming here [indicating], and going into the
Intracoastal Waterway ?
Mr. RANKIN. Yes, sir. That would save several hundred miles,
would it not ?
The CHAIRMAN. NO; it would not be that much.
General REYBOLD. It would save about 20 miles.
Mr. RANKIN. Under the proposed plan, you would have an entrance
also to the canal at Port Inglis for use in good weather. From there
they could go up through the open Gulf.
General REYBOLD. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. And during bad weather, you would have this pro-
tected route around through St. Joe, or Carrabelle.
General REYBOLD. Yes, sir; that is in the same area. I mentioned
Carrabelle because I took the name from a harbor project. We have
a 25-foot project in there.
Mr. RANKIN. The idea is that that would give an inland route to
Carrabelle, to be used at times when it was not safe to go over the
open route.
General REYBOLD. That is an all-weather route; yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. What would it cost to build a pipe line across there ?
This bill provides an authorization of $144,000,000, which covers a
pipe line and a canal around by St. Joe.
General REYBOLD. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. That waterway extends all the way to the Mexican
border.
Mr. RANKIN. Would it meet the situation, in your opinion, to build
this pipe line from Port Inglis across to Jacksonville, as a temporary
measure or expedient, and then build a barge line along the route
which has already been approved by the committee? Would that
meet the situation ?
General REYBOID. I would say we would build the pipe line from
Carrabelle to Jacksonville.
Mr. RANKIN. What about the canal? Would you build the canal
all the way to Carrabelle, too?
General REYBOLD. There is a canal from the west already in there.
There is already a canal there. There is also a deep channel in there
at Carrabelle of 25 feet. .Tankers and barges come into Carrabelle.
It would be a satisfactory transfer point.
Mr. RANKIN. Now, the hazards of going from Port Inglis through
the open Gulf are sufficient, in your opinion, to justify the provision
of this Carrabelle route?
General REYBOLD. Yes, sir.







INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 19

Mr. GREEN. About how long would it be reasonable to anticipate
would be required to put the canal across there from Port Inglis to
the St. Johns River?
General REYBOLD. That is a difficult question to answer under the
present conditions of priorities and available equipment for the exca-
vations that have to be made across there. But if we were to com-
plete that canal in 3 years, I would think we had done a good job.
Mr. RANKIN. The canal and pipe line being built concurrently?
General REYBOLD. They could be built concurrently. I think Mr.
Green's question was for the canal proper across Florida.
Mr. GREEN. Yes. You would say that a canal with a 12-foot depth
and 125 feet wide could be completed rapidly.
General REYBOLD. Possibly in 3 years.
Mr. GREEN. Just a 12-foot depth? I was wondering if it could
not be stepped up a bit.
General REYBOLD. It would depend on availability of materials, con-
struction equipment, and manpower.
The CHAIRMAN. It would depend on the equipment you could get?
General REYBOLD. Equipment in this country is growing tighter
and tighter, whether land or marine equipment.
Mr. HALL. General, how about equipment to build a pipe line ? How
quickly could that be gotten together ?
General REYBOLD. That is another question of priorities. We think
that with prompt deliveries of material on that pipeline we could
complete that job in 6 months. We believe that to be an outside
figure.
Mr. HALL. Have you made any investigation up to the present
time as to the availability of materials to do that ?
General REYBOLD. NO, sir; but it is tight. I can assure you of
that, because it is right in line with numerous other things that we
are attempting to get that involve steel products.
Mr. HALL. General, perhaps this is not a fair question to you,
but do you feel that we could very well go ahead with the pipe line
now and discuss the barge canal as a separate proposition, in view
of the vital need for oil and gasoline on the eastern seaboard ?
General REYBOLD. I would -n*.--t. if you wish to get oil to the
Atlantic coast, that we take immediate steps to build that pipe line.
Mr. HALL. Then they are really two separate propositions-the
barge canal and the pipe line ?
General REYBOLD. Absolutely. The one supplements the other.
One is of a temporary nature.
Mr. VooRHIS. General, if the pipe line alone were constructed,
assuming it was completed, it would be-or would it be-a great bene-
fit in getting oil to the Atlantic coast, even though the barge canal has
not yet been completed?
General REYBOLD. I would judge so; yes, sir.
Mr. VOORHIS. And would the pipe line be so used?
General REYBOLD. Oh, I judge so; yes, indeed.
Mr. DONDERO. General, have we any abandoned or unused pipe lines
in this country from which material could be obtained to construct
this pipe line?
General REYBOLD. I could not answer that question, Mr. Dondero,
although I have discussed it. I am informed that it is a little bit
difficult to find salvaged pipe lines.






20 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

Mr. DONDERO. Are you familiar with the law that Congress passed
last year authorizing the President to provide or build pipe lines ?
General REYBOLD. NO, sir; I am not familiar with it, and I could
not attempt to disentangle it even if I read it. I would have to leave
that to somebody else.
Mr. ANGELL. General Reybold. did you state what the estimated
cost of the pipe-line project would be?
General REYBOLD. I have not. I will be glad to state that we esti-
mate it to cost about $10,000,000.
Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, at this point I want the record to show
this language. I am reading from section 4 of Public Act 197, first
session, Seventy-seventh Congress:
The President may provide for the construction, extension, completion, or
operation of such pipe lines by such department or agency of the Government as
he may designate.
Does not that authorize the Chief Executive to proceed with the
construction of pipe lines if he so desires, if it is necessary in the
interests of national defense?
General REYBOLD. As a layman I would say "Yes."
Mr. PETERSON. What is meant by "such pipe lines"?
Mr. DONDERO. "Any such pipe line as he may by proclamation indi-
cate." That is in section 3. I read from section 4.
The CHAIRMAN. As may be necessary for the war ?
Mr. DONDERO. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I notice that the opponents of this
barge canal did not discover the fact that a pipe line was needed when
they had this proposition up before. All through the hearings they
never did discover that we needed this pipe line, until now the ques-
tion arises as to the need'for a pipe line and a canal, both.
Mr. DONDERO. The subject was discussed quite adequately several
different times, with the same objective in view.
Mr. GREEN. General, from Port Inglis across to the St. Johns, the
land cut is around 30 miles, and the land is low and soft. If you had
equipment, could you not put a 12-foot channel, 125 feet wide, across
there in from 12 to 18 months?
General REYBOLD. I doubt that. That is a land cut, Mr. Green.
Mr. GREEN. That is a land cut of approximately 30 miles; maybe 28.
Most of it is low, and that is from the Gulf across to the river. That
land cut, which is the only serious impediment to get across there with
barges, is around 30 miles in length, and it is soft land and very low.
If you had the equipment available, I am wondering if you could not
run a channel across there, 12 feet in depth and 125 feet or so in width,
in 6 to 12 months.
General REYBOLD. Are you referring to the intracoastal link?
Mr. GREEN. That is across Florida. That is what I am talking
about.
General REYBOLD. Oh, I thought you meant up here [indicating].
Mr. GREEN. No; that is that red line there. That is a main channel
across the State.
General REYBOLD. You could never do it.
Mr. GREEN. In 6 to 12 months?
General REYBOLD. No, sir.






INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 21

Mr. RANKIN. General Reybold, the necessity for this transportation
across Florida has been greatly increased on account of the submarine
menace on the Atlantic, the Gulf, and the Caribbean, has it not ?
General REYBOLD. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. And it makes it almost imperative that we get some
kind of transportation across Florida for this oil and gasoline, does
it not?
General REYBOLD. For petroleum products. That is all that pipe
line will do, naturally. There are other commodities moving north and
south that would probably demand the connecting waterway.
Mr. RANKIN. You recommend both the pipe line and the canal?
General REYBOLD. Yes, sir, I think both should be authorized.
Mr. CULKIN. General, where does that pipe line start from-at
Carrabelle?
General REYBOLD. Carrabelle; yes, sir.
Mr. CULKIN. And taking the present Gulf and coast-line route
from Corpus Christi to Carrabelle, what is the depth of it? Is that
all completed now ?
General REYBOLD. That is a continuous 9-foot project.
Mr. CULKIN. That is from Corpus Christi to Carrabelle ?
General REYBOLD. Yes, sir.
Mr. CULKIN. There is no work to be done on that ?
General REYBOLD. This bill contemplates deepening it to 12 feet.
The CHAIRMAN. And widening?
General REYBOLD. And widening.
Mr. CULKIN. What would be the probable tonnage on a 9-foot
waterway? What would be the possible tonnage?
General REYBOLD. It can carry considerable tonnage in excess of
that carried in 1941.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I placed in the record the figures for
the Intracoastal Waterway from Corpus Christi to New Orleans.
It was over 25,000,000 tons last year.
General REYBOLD. He wants the maximum capacity.
Mr. MILLER. Oh, the maximum capacity ? I did not get that.
Mr. CULKIN. So that by utilizing the present Intracoastal Waterway
at 9 feet and the pipe line from Carrabelle to the vicinity of Jackson-
ville, that waterway would be ready, with the accompanying pipe line,
in 6 months, General?
General REYBOLD. It would be ready for the movement of oil, we esti-
mate, within 6 months or less.
Mr. CULKIN. And you would recommend that?
General REYBOLD. Recommend a pipe line ?
Mr. CULKIN. Yes.
General REYBOLD. Yes, sir.
Mr. CULKIN. You think that would offer, within 6 months, a solu-
tion to the present difficulty?
General REYBOLD. Some solution. I do not know what the demand
for oil is on the coast, and it depends upon the size of the pipe line we
put in there. We figure on about a 24-inch line capacity, and we have
estimated the capacity of that installation to be 250,000 barrels per day.
Now, then, if you do not have the towboats and the barges to move
that capacity, again you are blocked.






22 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

Mr. CULKIN. Let me ask you right there: Could those towboats and
barges be made ready in 6 months' time, in your judgment?
General REYBOLD. That is a very difficult thing to estimate, Judge.
Using as an index what the oil companies have used of our waterway
improvements in the past, as soon as they were completed, I just have
a feeling that every fisherman and every barge that is available would
get into that traffic if the oil companies want to put them into it, and
there must be a tremendous number of barges and smaller towboats.
Mr. CULKIN. I think that is all.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, in view of the General's testimony, and
in view also of the fact that almost every member of the committee
thinks that we should do something as quickly as possible to get oil
from the Gulf to the inland waterways, I am wondering if the chair-
man still feels that further authority is necessary, and whether we
could not today or tomorrow separate this bill and pass out a bill
which would carry the provisions of the present bill as to the pipe
line only. In other words, unless there is some member of the com-
mittee who feels that we need more testimony as to the necessity of the
pipe line, I am satisfied that we need a pipe line, and I think we should
do something on that immediately. I do not know what time is going
to be taken up with testimony for the barge canal, but I do not believe,
in view of the General's testimony, that we should wait for that
testimony in order to act on a pipe line across Florida.
Mr. GREEN. Is not the gentleman's desire to separate the bill more
in the interest of throttling and destroying the waterway project than
with regard to the emergency?
Mr. HALL. No. I may vote for the barge canal, but I think they are
two separate propositions, and one of them is a project that can be
done in 6 months. We have had expert testimony upon it. The
general says that one cannot be built within 3 years, and the other
can be built in 6 months. Now, if the need for getting oil to the east-
ern seaboard is what I believe it is, I think we should do something
today or tomorrow to expedite the delivery of gas and oil to those
sections.
Mr. PETERSON. In that connection I would like to ask the general
this question: Is it your opinion that this barge canal is essential to
supplement the pipe line ? In other words, I had gathered that it is
your idea that the pipe line is more or less of a temporary proposition,
to supply urgently needed capacity, whereas the barge line will sup-
plement and round out the facilities that would be available.
General REYBOLD. That is correct. You can get your pipe line in
operation so much quicker, Mr. Peterson.
Mr. PETERSON. But, at the same time, the barge line, you feel, is also
essential to provide the proper and necessary facilities?
General REYBOLD. It depends upon the development. It seems a
pity not to have those two splendid waterways connected by a water-
way somehow. We have a large investment in these two waterways,
and we are curing just one problem by a pipe line-that is, petroleum
products-and I will grant you that-aside from rubber, I will say-
that is the greatest demand along this coast at the moment.
The CHAIRMAN. General, in that connection, we are also sending to
the East-more than 85 percent of which is being used by the Federal
Government now, directly or indirectly, for war purposes-approxi-





INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 23

mately 3,000,000 tons of sulfur a year. The transportation charge
on that sulfur, as I understand, which the Government is now paying,
is about $9 more per ton than it was when it went in ships around
the Atlantic. This barge line would serve the purpose of facilitating
the shipment of that sulfur if it could be put in within reasonable
time; would it not?
General REYBOLD. Yes, sir; not only sulfur, but any other commodi-
ties moving north or south.
The CHAIRMAN. I mentioned sulfur simply because it is a war mate-
rial and is so urgent, and large quantities of it are going to the
industrial East.
Mr. CULKIN. General, is there any such thing as sending that sulfur
through a pipe line?
The CHAIRMAN. NO.
General REYBOLD. NO, sir.
Mr. PETERSON. General, after you get this oil to Jacksonville
through this pipe line, is there transportation from Jacksonville up
the Intracoastal Waterway north?
General REYBOLD. We have a fine waterway up there, Mr. Peterson.
Mr. PETERSON. I know; but I mean barges and tankers and facilities
for moving this oil north after it gets to Jacksonville.
General REYBOLD. Well, there are some available; how many I do
not know. We have tried to round that up, Mr. Peterson, but it is
exceedingly difficult.
Mr. PETERSON. Now, if you had this barge canal through there, as a
practical proposition, would not a large number of these barges go
right on through, up the eastern seaboard, and would it not eliminate
the necessity for a set of barges on the Atlantic seaboard and another
set of barges in the Gulf area?
General REYBOLD. Well, you would not lessen the number of barges
at all, except by what the pipe line is able to carry.
Mr. PETERSON. I understand you have got to have a system of
barges to bring this oil to the pipe line, and then after you pipe it
through the pipe line you have got to have some more barges to take
it from there and move it on.
General REYBOLD. That is right.
Mr. PETERSON. I was thinking about the argument of the pipe line
answering the problem so far as oil is concerned. As a matter of
fact it does not answer the problem, because unless you have that barge
line through there you are going to have to have just as many barges
at Jacksonville to take the oil on up the eastern seaboard as you have
along the Gulf bringing the oil to the pipe line, whereas with the
barge canal those same barges can go right on through.
General REYBOLD. They would. They would go right on through,
and you would save breaking cargo.
Mr. CULKIN. General, the submarine menace extends over the en-
tire Gulf now, in your judgment ?
General REYBOLD. Judge, I do not know. I really do not know.
I cannot keep up with those submarines.
The CHAIRMAN. I will state, Judge Culkin, that a gentlemen from
New Orleans informed me last Saturday that the vessel that was
sunk the other day was within a mile and a half of the mouth of
the Mississippi River.







24 INTRACOASTAL 'WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

Mr. CULKIN. General, what would be the approximate cost of
that pipe line from Carrabelle to Jacksonville?
General REYBOLD. We estimate, in round figures, $10,000,000, cov-
ering the pipe line and necessary storage facilities and pumping
accessories.
Mr. CULKIN. The necessity in the Northeast, as you understand,
is very great at this time. We are told that coal will be 8,000,000
tons short in the Northeast this year, and oil for heating, of course,
will be greatly reduced-something like two-thirds of the normal
supply. So the solution must be forthcoming promptly.
General REYBOLD. One would judge so; yes, sir.
Mr. PETERSON. General, I have been turning over this proposition
of how you are going to get this oil up from Jacksonville just by
that pipe line. I notice this morning a statement from the Governor
of Florida to the President in which he states that there are barges
loaded with oil all along the Gulf coast of Florida today which
cannot be unloaded because there is no place to store the oil, and
that there is plenty of oil down in Florida and Georgia, in my sec-
tion of the country, but there is no oil up in this section. Now, a
pipe fine is just going to take this oil across the land to Jacksonville,
and unless you have some way to get it on up north from there,
what have you done?
General REYBOLD. It is wholly dependent upon floating craft-
barges and towboats-to get it up there.
Mr. PETERSON. Have you that floating craft available now ?
General REYBOLD. We have it to some extent.
Mr. PETERSON. Are you using it to the fullest capacity. now ?
General REYBOLD. There is none to be hauled from down there.
Mr. PETERSON. All right. Why don't you get a bunch of these
tank cars across to Jacksonville, just a few miles, and use the facili-
ties you have now to bring it up to this section of the country?
General REYBOLD. If you can find the tank cars, it is a fine proposi-
tion.
Mr. PETERSON. But you do have ample facilities from Jackson-
ville north, if you can get the oil to Jacksonville ?
General REYBOLD. Yes, sir. We have a 12-foot waterway from
there to Trenton.
Mr. PETERSON. But you have got to have barges and towboats ?
General REYBOLD. We have got to get them together; that is abso-
lutely correct. There must be barges and towboats.
Mr. PETERSON. You have not enough of them now ?
General REYBOLD. I would say not.
Mr. PETERSON. How long would it take to build a sufficient number
of those boats?
General REYBOLD. I could not tell you that; but I do know this: As
soon as you build a barge or towboat you can put it into use
immediately.
Mr. PETERSON. How long will it take to build those barges and
towboats, under present conditions ?
General REYBOLD. It is all dependent again, of course, Mr. Peter-
son, on priorities even for building wooden barges. You have seen
a good deal of discussion about that in the newspapers.







INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 25

Mr. PETERSON. My main reason for asking that question was your
statement that a pipe line can be constructed in approximately 6
months and the barge canal would take considerably more than 12
months. If it takes as long to build barges, approximately, as it
does to build a barge canal, it appears that there is more argument,
possibly, for building the barge canal than there is for the pipe
line; because, if you build a barge canal, you already have barges
available on the Gulf coast which can move right on up the Atlantic
seaboard, whereas if you build a pipe line and do not have any facili-
ties from Jacksonville north, you have still got to build the barges,
and you are using more of the vital war material in building barges,
whereas if you construct a.barge canal you eliminate that? Is not
that true?
General REYNOLDS. With any barges that you might build in con-
nection with this pipe line, this transfer of oil would certainly be
available to us on a through waterway. You are not throwing any-
thing away.
Mr. PETERSON. I understand; but if it takes as long to build a barge
as it does to build a barge canal, building a pipe line in 6 months is
not going to solve the problem, because you do not now have the
facilities from Jacksonville north.
General REYNOLDS. I did not say you did not have facilities from
Jacksonville north.
Mr. PETERSON. But you say you have not an ample number of barges.
SGeneral REYNOLDS. There are barges all over our inland waterway
system. Now, then, there may be a rearrangement of those barges. If
there be more barges on the Gulf coast, we will say, than are needed
to accommodate the traffic that might be available along the Gulf coast,
then they would haul those barges around and put them in use on the
Atlantic coast.
Mr. PETERSON. That is true.
The observation was made by someone a few moments ago that
very probably every available craft will immediately go into the
hauling of this oil from the Gulf coast, which left the impression on
me that probably we could use all of that craft on the Gulf coast,
and they would have to use some other facilities from Jacksonville
north. Of course, if you have ample facilities now, and they can be
distributed between the Gulf coast and the Atlantic seaboard, the
pipe line would probably answer the question; but if you do not have
them, you have got to build something to carry that oil north.
General REYBOLD. That is right.
Mr. PiETRSON. If it takes just as long to build that as it does to
build a barge canal, it appears to me that you have not answered our
problem by putting a pipe line there, although you might have relieved
the pressure to a degree.
General REYBOLD. The way I look at the proposition is this, Mr.
Peterson: Let us assume that we do have a 24-inch pipe line across
Florida and that the capacity of that line is 250,000 barrels a day.
Now, possibly we have not enough barges and towboats to move that
much oil, but let us assume that at the moment we do have sufficient
floating equipment to move 100,000 barrels per day. We are getting
somewhere, and we are working to that end.







26 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

Mr. PETERSON. Which gets back to your original proposition that
the pipe line is good and relieves the necessities of the present problem,
but you need also to build a barge canal there to round out the
facilities ?
General REYBOLD. Yes, sir.
Mr. DONDERO. Absolutely.
Mr. CLKIN. May I state that I saw a piece in the paper recently
stating that these wooden barges-not steel, but wooden barges-could
be built very promptly in the South; that there is ample timber there;
that there was no particular priority on it, and they could be built
within a comparatively short period.
Mr. GREEN. Then, by the time the barge line is completed all that
may have been developed and that will solve the problem. It is
necessary to have the barge line going right along in construction.
Mr. CULKIN. These boats would be available in the event of the
construction of the barge line.
Mr. GREEN. Yes.
Mr. DONDERO. General Reybold, the whole discussion returns to
one question: How can we serve the Nation best? Time seems to be
of the essence and the important thing. Don't you think that the
building of the pipe line may be the best thing possible to do now,
and the building of the barge line a secondary consideration? Is
that about the way you look at it ?
General REYBOLD. Yes, sir.
Mr. DONDERO. It seems that way to me.
Mr. GREEN. But, General, in your statement previously you said
that the barge line was part of the program and should go right along
with the pipe line.
General REYBOLD. What are you talking about-the barge line or
the barge canal?
Mr. GREEN. The barge canal.
General REYBOLD. Mr. Dondero is talking about the barge line.
Mr. DONDERO. No; the barge canal.
General REYBOLD. I thought you said the barge line, meaning the
barges.
Mr. DONDERO. The barge canal.
General REYBOLD. We have some barges, as I have said, and we
ought to get that pipe line in to put them to use.
Mr. DONDERO. What is the position of the Navy Department on
this subject, General? Have they been consulted?
General REYBOLD. They have not been consulted by me.
Mr. PETERSON. Would the Navy be particularly interested in it one
way or the other ?
Mr. CULKIN. I think the Navy's duty is generally offshore.
Mr. DONDERO. They are vitally interested in getting the fuel to run
our ships.
The CHAIRMAN. General, I will state that there is another way by
which transportation can be facilitated across there without even
waiting for a pipe line, if you will look at the letter that Mr. Miller
put in the record a while ago, that I wrote to Mr. Pelley some time last
fall. I suggested that he have tank cars to haul it across by rail. He







INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 27

answered that he thought the railroads were amply supplied to handle
all of the oil needs of the country. You would not have to wait any
length of time if the railroads can take it.
Mr. CULKIN. If that is true, why are we going to be short in the
Northeast 8,000,000 tons of coal this winter?
The CHAIRMAN. Because the railroads have not the equipment.
Mr. CULKIN. That is just it. And we are going to get about two-
thirds of the supply necessary of fuel oil. The curious thing about it
is that these bureaucrats say that we should change over to coal, that
we are not going to get enough oil, and then they say in the same
breath that we are short 8,000,000 tons of coal and that grates are on
the priority list and we cannot get any.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I have been impressed with the
statement made by the Governor of Florida, in the last few hours,
to the effect that there is plenty of oil on the Gulf coast of Florida
available or in barges ready to be unloaded, but with no place to put
it. Those barges are standing there idle because they cannot unload
them and then go back and get more oil. We have water facilities
from Jacksonville north to move that oil. Why on earth cannot the
Government, the Army or the Navy, the President, the 0. P. M., or
somebody, get some cars and shuttle back and forth about 100 miles
from the Gulf coast to Jacksonville, and move that oil, and bring it
up here, where they need it? I do not know much about transporta-
tion, of course-
The CHAIRMAN. We have to get somebody besides the Governor of
Florida who knows that the barges are there.
Mr. PETERSON. Certainly that is a physical fact that anybody can
determine, and I do not think the Governor of Florida would make
such a statement, if it were not so.
Mr. CULKIN. I understood the Governor made the statement that
there were lots of barges down there, and when the Petroleum Co-
ordinator looked the matter up, they found eight somewhat dilapi-
dated and not very seaworthy.
Mr. PETERSON. Well, I have a great deal of confidence in the in-
tegrity of the Governor of Florida.
Mr. CULKIN. I think he was mistaken that time.
Mr. PETERSON. Why could not we start these barges moving right
now and bring that oil to the closest point, Jacksonville, and then get
some facilities to bring it on up here where they need it? That looks
to me just like common sense, and a good move on our part if we
really want more oil. Of course, it may be true that it is a fine thing
to cut down on the use of oil in order to save other vital material. But
you gentlemen know more about that than I do.
Mr. GREEN. General, for the record, you do favor the immediate
beginning of the pipe line and the barge canal to connect that up ?
General REYBOLD. Right.
Mr. DONDERO. General, the proposed route of this barge line would
not follow the same route designated for the ship canal that was
proposed?
General REYBOLD. Yes, sir; it would.
Mr. DONDERO. It would follow the same route?
General REYBOLD. Yes, sir.







28 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

Mr. DONDERO. Then build north along the Florida coast from that
to complete the Intracoastal Waterway?
General REYBOLD. I would like to come back to Mr. Green's question.
I said that he was correct about building the barge canal. You have
got to weigh the requirements of that canal and the materials and
the equipment that will be needed against other demands of the war
effort, and I am unable to settle that. Have I made myself clear?
There is a question of priority in the use of manpower, in the use of
drd-d.ni" equipment, in the use of dirt-moving equipment, and other
requirements for the construction of that canal which, as I say, must
,be weighed against other requirements of the war effort.
Mr. GREEN. I understand, however, that they have available dredges
from time to time that could be used, and that no other critical
material except dredges would be required.
General REYBOLD. You will find that nearly every dredge in this
country is busy at this moment.
Mr. CULKIN. General, there has been a good deal of controversy
from time to time about the depth of the water in the coastwise canal
up to Trenton. Can you clear that up? What is the depth of the
coastwise canal from Jacksonville to Trenton ?
General REYBOLD. The project depth is 12 feet at mean low water.
Mr. CULKIN. They were talking about 9 feet; you say it is 12 feet
at low water ?
General REYBOLD. From Jacksonville to Trenton; 12 feet or more.
That is the controlling project depth.
Mr. CULKIN. And that is all the way to Trenton from Jacksonville ?
General REYBOLD. Yes. Of course, you may find that our main-
tenance dredging has dragged a little bit, but the project and the
authority are there to maintain a 12-foot channel all the way up the
coast.
Mr. GREEN. General, do you anticipate that it would be possible
to get the dredges to put on this work? What is more important
than putting a barge canal through there, as compared with other
river and harbor developments?
General REYBOLD. The priorities ire beyond me, Mr. Green.
Mr. GREEN. As I understand it, the engineers have quite a number
of dredges that they are using now on various projects-the Army
engineers.
General REYBOLD. I think that every dredge that we have is busily
engaged on some project that is closely alllied with the war effort.
either in maintenance or in new construction.
Mr. GREEN. In all probability, some of those dredges could and
would be released for this project, if approved; is that right ?
General REYBOLD. It may be; if this is of greater importance than
some other project, that might come up in the meantime. It would
be manifestly impossible for me or anyone else at this moment to get
any machinery, either floating plant or land plant, to the construc-
tion of that job down there at this time. I could not do it, because
I do not know what the future is going to bring forth.
Mr. GREEN. Of course, that is true. But, for the sake of the record,
I did not want the newspapers to report that you said that there were
no dredges available and that there would not be any available.
General REYBOLD. I have not said that there would not be any
available.







INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 29

Mr. GREEN. These boys write and if you say anything against the
canal they will write it.
General REYBOLD. I understand.
Mr. GREEN. For the sake of the record, I want it to be clearly
shown, if it is the case, that if the canal is approved, the Army
engineers would consider it a measure worthy of carrying out, in line
with what has been said here this morning. In other words, I know
that we have many projects throughout the country. We have many
dredges. If this measure is approved as a war measure, it would
seem to me that it should stand on a footing with other emergency
engineering projects. Of course, we are not doing much river devel-
opment. The Congress made very light appropriations for emer-
gency harbor developments except in connection with the ship con-
struction program.
Mr. CULKIN. I think the gentleman from Florida has done very
well with the Chief of Engineers so far.
Mr. GREEN. I think the Chief has made a very definitely favorable
statement for the project. But I did not want the wrong impression
to get out.
The CHAIRMAN. But I understood him to say that when the news-
paper men said anything against the canal that they were right.
Mr. GREEN. NO; I said that when any statement was made against
the canal, these newspapermen are here and that they write. I did
not want the impression to get out that all we need here is a pipe
line for temporary use, and that the barge canal was taboo; because,
for myself, I intend to stand for the bill in its present form, to
approve both, because the barge canal is just as essential to this oil
movement over a period of years as is a pipe line.
The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, are there any further questions?
If not, General, we are very much obliged to you. The committee
will recess until 2 o'clock.
(Whereupon the committee took a recess until 2 p. m.)

AFTERNOON SESSION
The committee reassembled at 2 p. m., Hon. Joseph J. Mansfield
(chairman) presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order.
Mr. Miller, who is your next witness ?
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, we have Capt. Gilbert T. Rude, of the
Coast and Geodetic Survey. Captain Rude is chief of the Division
of Coastal Surveys of the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and he will
present some information of interest to the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to have a statement from Captain
Rude at this time.

STATEMENT OF CAPT. GILBERT T. RUDE, CHIEF, DIVISION OF
COASTAL SURVEYS, COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY

Captain RUDE. Mr. Chairman, my testimony will be brief, because
we are only interested in the surveying and charting of the water-
way.
General Reybold's statement to the committee this morning as
to the program of the President applies equally in my case.






30 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

The interest of the Coast and Geodetic Surey in the Intracoastal
Waterway is principally from the standpoint of surveying and
charting, not only charting of the dredged waterways, but also the
natural waterways forming a part of the system, including con-
tiguous territory at some distance from the waterways proper.
Based in large part on surveys made in recent years, the entire
waterways from Corpus Christi, Tex., to Boston, Mass., are com-
pletely surveyed and adequately charted.
The section of the waterway from Corpus Christi, Tex., to Port
St. Joe, Fla., or Carrabelle, as the case may be, has a depth of 9 feet
and is approximately 800 miles long. The section from Jacksonville,
Fla., to Norfolk, Va., has a controlling depth of 12 feet and is approxi-
mately 775 miles long.
Mr. CULKIN. That is not the navigable depth.
Captain RUDE. That is the controlling depth, up to 12 feet, at mean
low water. The section from Norfolk, Va., to Trenton, N. J., by way
of the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal, has a controlling depth of 25
feet and is approximately 260 miles long.
The CHAIRMAN. Some of it is 35 feet deep, in Chesapeake Bay and
the Delaware River.
Captain RUDE. Yes; through the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal
the project depth is 27 feet.
Of course, from Perth Amboy, N. J., to Boston, Mass., natural
waterways are available, except through the Cape Cod Canal.
Mr. CULKIN. That is in the open sea?
Captain RUDE. No; that is through Long Island Sound to the Cape
Cod Canal.
Mr. CULKIN. That is an inland waterway?
Captain RUDE. Except for a short distance in Long Island Sound
along the Connecticut coast, where it is open to the sea, it is what we
call an inland waterway.
Mr. CULKIN. Then you have 9 feet-
Captain RUDE. It is 9 feet down the gulf, from Corpus Christi to
Port St. Joe, Fla., and 12 feet from Jacksonville to Norfolk.
Mr. CULKIN. What is the greatest wind sweep along there?
Captain RUDE. I would say on the Chesapeake Bay. But is only
occasionally that you have bad storms there.: Also, these barges
would have anchorages along the way, even off Chesapeake Bay.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the situation as to passing through Hamp-
ton Roads?
Captain RUDE. That is inside.
The CHAIRMAN. I know it is, but that is a more windy expanse than
any other point.
Captain RUDE. Yes; but there it would be only the northeasters
that would do any great damage. Occasionally you have heavy
northwesters in the wintertime, but we have anchorages along the
way; but generally in the Chesapeake Bay you can begin using larger
tugs which can stand the heavier weather, and on the Intracoastal
Waterway it would be like going along a country road.
Mr. DONDERO. Are there any places on the intracoastal waterway
where barges could be attacked by submarines; in other words, where
the channel would be open sufficiently to the sea to permit such
attacks?






INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 31

Captain RUDE. Nowhere between Corpus Christi and Norfolk, or, I
would say, all the way to Trenton.
Mr. DONDERO. At no other place except the two or three you
mentioned ?
Captain RUDE. The only place is along the Connecticut coast, where
it is somewhat exposed, but only for a short distance; even that is not
an open coast, it is in Long Island Sound.
The CHAIRMAN. Under present conditions you would have to put
into the open sea around the Jersey coast?
Captain RUDE. Yes; if you are going in barges, but not to Trenton.
The CHAIRMAN. But you would have to do that if you were going
to Boston.
Captain RUDE. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. You have a type of oceangoing barge which hauls
coal from Norfolk to Boston.
Captain RUDE. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Could not these river barges be operated on the
12-foot channel to Norfolk and then discharge their cargo to one of
the deep-draft barges, and could they not operate from there to
Trenton without trouble, because it is all deep water?
Captain RUDE. They could operate there because it is all deep water
for the larger tugs.
The CHAIRMAN. One of those large barges would hold how many
barrels of oil? Do you have any idea about that ?
Captain RUDE. Not except by hearsay. I understand the ones on
the Gulf are about 120 feet long, with less than a 9-foot draft. Some-
body who is quick at mathematics could figure out the number of
barrels that would be.
The CHAIRMAN. We have all sorts of experts here. We can get
those figures.
Mr. DONDERO. I do not know whether you are the right witness to
whom I should direct this question. But have you any information
regarding the pipe lines leading from the Pittsburgh area to the
Atlantic coast ?
Captain RUDE. No, sir; I am a sailor; I do not go back inside.
As I said, from Perth Amboy, N. J., to Boston, Mass., natural
waterways are available, except through the Cape Cod Canal. This
canal has a controlling depth of 29 feet. The distance from Perth
Amboy to Goston is approximately 230 miles. This route is wholly
inside except for a short stretch along the Connecticut coast in Long
Island Sound, and the short distance between the eastern terminal
of the Cape Cod Canal and Boston. This waterway from Corpus
Christi to Boston is covered by 43 Coast and Geodetic Survey charts.
A large number of them are the regular navigation charts, while
from Norfolk, Va., to Jacksonville, Fla., a special set of strip charts
have been constructed of ample scale for the purpose. From the
Mississippi to about Port Arthur, Tex., two special charts have been
prepared covering the Intracoastal Waterway and side areas in
Louisiana and Mississippi on each side of the water. These two
charts are charts 1050 and 1051.
There are two panels to a chart, and they cover the waterway with
a red line showing the course a small vessel should take along the
waterway.
72774-42-3







32 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

Mr. CULKIN. As a matter of fact, those waterways all have an
ample number of buoys.
Captain RUDE. Yes, sir.
Mr. CULKIN. And they are lighted ?
Captain RUDE. Yes, sir.
Mr. CULKIN. It is not any serious navigation task anywhere.
Captain RUDE. It would be like going along a lighted street most
of the way. They do not require any expert navigators.
The CHAIRMAN. In the district below Norfolk there are two canals,
one known as the Lake Drummond Canal running through the Dismal
Swamp, and one through the Chesapeake and Albermarle Canal. Are
"they both in operation?
Captain RUDE. I understand the latter has a depth of 12 feet. In
the other there are some sections about 8 feet that have not been
maintained properly.
Mr. CULKIN. Those are ordinarily navigated at 9 or 10 feet, all
of those waterways?
Captain RUDE. At any time.
As I said, from the Mississippi to about Port Arthur, Tex., two
special charts have been prepared covering the Intracoastal Water-
way and side areas in Louisiana and Mississippi on each side of the
waterway. Those are charts Nos. 1050 and 1051. They cover a large
part of the area on each side of the Intracoastal Waterway, and they
were made primarily for the Intracoastal Waterway.
This morning the question came up as to the availability of barges,
and also the question as to whether barges could be built in time to
relieve the shortage of oil on the Atlantic coast. While I am not an
oilman, it is my opinion that a wooden barge would hold oil which I
understand is so sluggish that at times it has to be heated to put it
through the pipe line.
There was a statement in some of the papers some time ago that
the oil would leak through the barges and kill the fish along the
canal. That seems to be a rather farfetched statement to me, that
the heavy oil could get through planks about 2 inches thick.
Mr. SMTrH. The fact is that the Maritime Commission has recently
authorized the construction, or called for bids for the construction of
tanker barges 185 feet long, which would be constructed out of fir
lumber. Those would be practicable, would they not?
Captain RUDE. I do not know about the length, but I imagine there
is no place which could not take that length. I do not know about
the kind of wood these barges would be built of, but they could be
built possibly of planking 2 inches thick and well calked, and when
a plank is in the water it swells, making it absolutely watertight;
and the oil, in my opinion, would not permeate to any great extent
through the pores of the planking when it is that thick.
Mr. RANKIN. It would not be necessary to use fir timber; they
could use pine, could they not ?
Captain RUDE. Any kind of timber that would serve that purpose.
These barges are rather small, and they could be built in many
places along these waterways with little or no interruption to the war
effort, and of material which is not required to any large extent at this
time, of lumber with a small amount of spikes and bolts.







INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 33

There are probably several thousand carpenters between Boston and
Corpus Christi who are over age for military duty or service. They
are probably not trained as machinists or as steel workers, but there
are probably a lot of them who are fully qualified to build wooden
barges for this purpose, and who could readily build them, and they
do not need to be experienced shipbuilders.
Mr. CULKIN. How long does it take to build one of them?
Captain RUDE. The way we are turning out ships, I think these
could be turned out so that you could probably build one in 2 weeks or
a month if you have plenty of men.
Mr. GREEN. We have more than 30 plants in Florida that could
build those barges.
Captain RUDE. I think you have. We have been building a good
many vessels recently. We would have trouble getting bids for our
own fleet, or for steel vessels, but we have not had any trouble in regard
to wooden-vessels. We have some small boats being built in Benton
Harbor, and two small ones around Cape Cod. We got all the bids
we wanted on that class of work.
These vessels require more expert workmen than the barges. They
require more skilled workmen.
The CHAIRMMN. Is there any steel required in the construction of
one of the wooden barges?
Captain RUDE. I would say there would be a few pounds of spikes
and some bolts, but it would be an infinitesimal amount. Then there
would be a few iron anchors, and that is about all.
The CHAIRMAN. Would they require wire rope for tows?
Captain RUDE. You can use the ordinary manila rope; they could
be towed by pleasure craft or fishing craft until we could get small tugs
built.
Mr. SMrrH. You are familiar with the type of boat they use for
shrimp fishing?
Captain RUDE. Yes.
Mr. SMITH. Could they use those for tows?
Captain RUDE. Probably so; it is smooth water. We have men who
are good. These fishermen could handle the tows just as well as
highly paid navigators.
We also have fishermen on Chesapeake Bay who have their boats
that are not used a great part of the year. They are not large vessels,
but they would be capable of towing in the protected waters south of
Norfolk, in my opinion.
Mr. CULKIN. IS that the type of boat that is there now ? The Navy
has taken over a lot of those types.
Captain RUDE. Yes; but not the class I am thinking of. They are
smaller than the Navy would require. You also have pleasure craft.
The Navy has taken over some yachts, but there are some small ones
left.
In this connection I have a letter from the Mathiason Shipping Co.,
Inc., 15 Moore Street, New York City, in which this company offers
to assist in an endeavor to pool the services of all the towing companies
in New York Harbor for operation on this waterway. This company
owns five tugs, with engines of from 300 to 700 horsepower.
The CHAIRMAN. The fishing industry are fearful that they will have
to go out of business. Judge Culkin and myself are members of the







34 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and that committee has
been holding hearings during the past 2 weeks. They cannot get any
way to can the fish and oysters. This is all tied up, with no tin, no
steel, and no copper. They are up against a hard proposition.
We have recommended an appropriation for experimentation to try
to find some other means for canning. The Department of Agricul-
ture is up against the same proposition in reference to fruits and
vegetables.
Captain RUDE. A lot of those boats would be available, but possibly
it might be well to build some small-boat tows.
Mr. CULKIN. But the trouble is in getting engines.
Captain RUDE. Yes.
Mr. CULKIN. If you could utilize the existing boats that fishermen
have I think that suggestion is excellent. Of course, you will have a
dislocation of the Nation's food supply.
Mr. RANKIN. If we do not solve the transportation problem we will
have plenty of engines, because we are catching up on everything
except transportation, as I understand it.
Captain RUDE. These engines need not be large, powerful engines.
We have built two Diesels in the last few years. The boats are 88
feet long, a little larger than would probably be needed for this job.
'They are powered by two 250-horsepower Diesels. You would not
-have to have such a very large number of those Diesels. If they would
build 50 of them that would not require a great deal of steel, and they
could be supplemented by the pleasure craft and fishing vessels.
Mr. SMITH. Have you made any estimate of the number of barges
that would be required for this program?
Captain RUDE. There is 2,000 miles of waterway from Corpus Christi
to Boston. Say it is 1,600 miles from Corpus Christi to Trenton; you
could build 1,600 barges, and you would have 1 every 2 miles and
have 1 landing every couple of hours at Trenton.
Mr. SMITH. How many tugboats would you need ?
The CHAIRMAN. You would need one-third of that number, I pre-
sume.
Captain RUDE. Yes; I would say one-third. It would depend on
how much the supply needs to be supplemented along the Atlantic
coast to determine how many you would build.
Mr. CULKIN. Are there any low spots on the channel along the
coast?
Captain RUDE. You mean shallow spots?
Mr. CULKIN. Yes.
Captain RUDE. The Army engineers maintain that canal, and so far
as I know now, after going through their reports recently, we have
found none except one or two near Norfolk.
Mr. CULKEN. That could be cured by dredging?
Captain RUDE. Yes; but you have a second one which has 12
feet. There are two south of Norfolk, one at Currituck and the
other on Dismal Swamp, around Lake Drummond.
The CHAIRMAN. Half in Virginia and half in North Carolina.
By the way, the channel there was first cut by George Washington.
Captain RUDE. Yes. The maintenance there now would be quite
simple. If they get any shallow spots the Army engineers take
them out.






INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 35

The CHAIRMAN. You have not told us about the proposed pipe line
across Florida.
Captain RUDE. That was covered pretty well this morning. I
might say regarding that pipe line that the Coast and Geodetic
Survey has a line of precise levels extending from Port St. Joe to
the St. Johns River practically along the line that the proposed pipe
line would be laid, or along the route that would probably be fol-
lowed by the pipe line. The highest point on that line of levels is
only 202 feet, and that is about 55 miles west of Jacksonville. Down
farther, where the canal would go across, it is not that high.
Mr. JoHNS. I do not know whether you have testified about this
or not, but I wish you would tell me what distance you ~ave in
putting the canal across there where it is proposed to put it; what
distance do you save in going around the peninsula?
Captain RUDE. I would have to guess. I would say the canal
would probably be about 275 or 300 miles long. The distance around,
I would say, would be about 800 or 900 miles. But I am guessing
on that. You mean down from Carrabelle, down around Key West,
on the outside?
Mr. JoHNs. Yes.
Captain RUDE. I am guessing when I say I would think it would
be about 800 miles.
The CHAIRMAN. You say the channel across would be about 275
miles ?
Captain RUDE. I am guessing at that.
The CHAIRMAN. You are estimating the distance from Carrabelle?
Captain RUDE. Yes; I am estimating it is about 220 miles fiont
Port St. Joe to Jacksonville by the route over which the pipe lines
would go, and the proposed canal swings down in a curve southward.
The CHAIRMAN. If the canal extended down the shore, or followed
the shore line-
Captain RUDE (interposing). That would be longer. If they should
go along the coast, it would be longer.
Mr. CULKIN. What is the controlling depth of the St. Johns River?
Captain RUDE. Deep-draft vessels navigate it.
The CHAIRMAN. It is 13 feet from Palatka to Jacksonville, 55 miles.
Mr. CULKIN. That would be where the proposed canal would come
out-at Palatka.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. CULKIN. I was thinking about the terminus of the pipe line.
Captain RUDE. On the St. Johns River side ?
Mr. CULKIN. Yes.
Captain RUDE. That would be in deep water. Deep-draft vessels
could navigate there.
Mr. CULKIN. How far down?
Captain RUDE. Jacksonville is located about 27 miles from the sea.
Mr. CULKIN. What is the length of the St. Johns River?
Captain RUDE. About 285 miles. Its course is parallel to the coast.
The CHAIRMAN. It runs due north.
Captain RUDE. Yes, sir. Due north to Jacksonville, and then flows
due east.
Mr. RANKIN. The gentleman from New Yoark asked a moment
ago how much farther the traffic would have to be carried if it went







36 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

around the Florida cape. As a matter of fact, boats cannot go around
there now.
Captain RUDE. No, sir. That is what they have been trying to get
away from, or trying to get away from the submarine menace.
Mr. RANKIN. Even without the submarine menace, those barges
could not go around through the Gulf of Mexico, through the Florida
Strait; but, of course, with the submarine menace, it would be a
terrible hazard.
Captain RUDE. Yes, sir. These smaller vessels could not go around
the Florida cape.
The CHAIRMAN. These vessels are like the ones carrying coal to
Norfolk.
Captain RUDE. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. I believe that if the submarine menace was not there,
these barges that would travel through the intracoastal canal could
not go around the Florida cape.
Captain RUDE. No, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. If there is nothing further, we thank you very
much for your statement.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert in the record a
telegram addressed to me by Munger T. Ball, president of the Sabine
"Transportation Co., Inc., at Port Arthur, Tex., a concern which has
been engaged in towing oil for many years. This telegram refers to
the use of wooden barges for the transportation of oil.
The CHAIRMAN. I suggest that you read it.
Mr. MILLER. The telegram reads as follows:
PORT ARTHUR, TEX., May 15, 1942.
ROY MILLER,
Mayflower Hotel, Washington ,D. C.
Concerning practicability using wood barges for petroleum service intra-
,coastal canal. For many years wood barges were used to transport heavy fuel
and crude oil on the inland waterways of Louisiana and Texas and see no
reason why with good construction they cannot be used again. However offec-
tively use wood barges will require more careful navigation on the congested
waterways and the regulating of the method of towing, also a modification of
'he present population act to reasonable interpretation is necessary. Further, an
assurance from the Coast Guard Bureau Marine Inspection and Navy that the
present life limit of wood barges in bulk petroleum service would be extended
so owners could expect to recover cost of construction. Sorry cannot be at
hearing Monday; extend to Congressman Mansfield my regards and best wishes
for a constructive successful hearing.
MUNGER T. BALL.
SABINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I now desire to present-I was about
to say our star witness, but I will say one from among our galaxy
of witnesses.
The CHAIRMAN. He is one of the stars.
Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. I wish to present Col. Ernest 0. Thompson,
cf the Texas Railroad Commission, which not only has the supervi-
sion of all transportation facilities in Texas, but is also the State
authority which regulates the oil industry. It is the opinion of most
of us in Texas that no one in the country knows more about the
production and transportation of oil than does Colonel Thompson.
May I ask, Mr. Chairman, that Colonel Thompson be permitted to
finish his initial statement so it may be in connected form, and then
have questions by members of the committee ?






INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 37

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is proper and, unless there is objection,
we will observe that rule.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I wish to object to this map which
shows United States petroleum reserves. It includes Texas, Louisi-
ana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma, but does not mention Mississippi, which
has one of the leading oil fields of the country.
Mr. MILLER. We will have to have the map reprinted.
The CHAIRMAN. I think this map was prepared before oil was dis-
covered in Mississippi.
Colonel Thompson, we will be glad to hear you at this time.

STATEMENT OF COL. ERNEST 0. THOMPSON, REPRESENTING THE
RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS

Colonel THOMPSON. In the first place, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen
of the committee, I want to thank you for the invitation to come to
this hearing, and to say that I have certainly enjoyed listening to the
testimony.
The CHAIRMAN. There is one thing I want to ask you before you
commence. How many counties in Texas are producing oil?
Colonel THOMPSON. We have 254 counties in the State, and all the
counties in Texas are producing oil or are leased for oil with the
exception of 21.
In the State of Texas we have, as this map which I have circulated
around among the members of the committee shows, 56.6 percent of
the Nation's oil reserves. That is about 25 percent of the discovered
known reserves of the world. It is 25 percent, or a little less than 25
percent, of the known reserves of the world. This map shows that
Texas wells are producing 35.4 percent of all the production in the
United States, and, as against that, we have 56.6 percent of the Nation's
oil reserves.
This map is significant, or the points are, with reference to the fact
that we are producing less than our reserves would entitle the State
to produce. Ordinarily we would produce, if we produced our pro-
portion, it would be more, or the proportion that our State's oil re-
serves bore to the oil reserves of the Nation. To illustrate that point,
the State of California has 16 percent of the reserves and produced
16.5 percent of the requirements of last year. That is the best balance
of all, and, of course, that is the ideal situation. However, the time
will come when Texas, New Mexico, and other States bringing in new
fields, will have to provide a larger proportion of the production, be-
cause the States of Illinois, Kansas, and Oklahoma have depleted their
fields through long production, and, if I may say, without restraint.
By that I mean that they have produced a little more openly with wells
that have produced larger quantities at a faster rate of flow than we
have seen fit to do in Texas.
We have what is known as the proration in our State. This prora-
tioning is the application of a scientific principle which will cause
to be produced the greatest amount of oil possible over the whole life.
of the fields; or, to state it conversely, it is a method that will cause to
be left in the zone of the producing horizon the least possible amount
of oil. In other words, it is conservation. The application of this
principle to the production of oil is true conservation. Now, proration






38 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

goes one step further in the technique, in that it allocates to the various
fields of the States and various wells in each field their proportion of
the total allowable by the State. I mention that so that the various
terms may be understood.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not want to violate the rule by interrupting
you, but will you state whether that is a Federal or State regulation?
Colonel THOMPSON. It is based upon the State constitution and the
police powers of the State of Texas. In our constitution, we have a
requirement that the natural resources of the State shall be conserved.
Our conservation authority is under that constitutional provision.
We are, however, assisted by the Federal Government through the
office of the Petroleum Coordinator, formerly through the Bureau of
Mines, which furnishes us each month an estimate of the required
production. That is furnished for each succeeding month. Then we
have a hearing after that figure is received on the 20th of each month,
at which time we listen to all the purchasers. When we get the figure
from the Coordinator, we proceed to allocate that figure among all
the various fields and pools in the State, there being 522 in our State,
with 90,288 producing wells. To give you an example of how the pro-
rationing system works, there are 27,000 wells in East Texas fields.
That field is now 12 years old, and out of the 27,000 wells, 17,000 are
still flowing naturally, from their own energy pressure within the
reservoir. That is what we call bottom-hole pressure. They have kept
that pressure constant and preserved it by having 96 key wells, and
once each month they put pressure bombs down at the bottom of the
wells. They stay down for a short time, and record the pressure at
the bottom of the well. As that pressure is taken from the key wells
in the field, they average it up. If the pressure declines to a certain
point, it reduces the rate of the flow, and there is a lot of water that
comes in from, say, 100 miles away, from Woodbine sand outcroppings.
By keeping the pressure constant and by observing methods of con-
servation we have been able to keep the wells flowing for a long time
before they go to pumping.
In the old days, an oil well went into pumping within a few months.
We learned the hard way, through dire necessity, to limit production.
As an oil field comes in it produces with terrific ability, and in those
days, a well producing 50,000 barrels a day would swamp the country.
So I frankly say that through dire necessity we learned to limit pro-
duction. We had to deal with both consumption and production, and
we had to have a legal basis on which to do the thing that was desir-
able to everybody concerned. I mean by that statement that conserva-
tion came about as a result of necessity.
Anyhow, out of that came the method of conservation that I have
just explained to you, which has preserved that pressure at the bottom
of the wells, to the end that we have already recovered from the East
Texas field 1,780,000,000 barrels of oil from that one field alone. The
experts in the beginning estimated that only 1,000,000,000 barrels
would be recovered from that field through controlling this oil level.
Now, those same experts have revised their estimates so that they
say at least 2,000,000,000 more barrels will be recovered from that
field, making 3,780,000,000 barrels from that field if their estimates
are correct, as against the original estimate of 1,000,000,000 barrels,
which would be a dividend of 2,780,000,000 barrels of oil just by going






INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 39

a little slower to preserve and maintain the pressure, because that
pressure drives the oil ahead of it and cleans the well of the oil. We
find that in going back those wells no longer produce oil, but 100
percent water. We find where the water has completely pushed the
oil away, and that by going back those wells no longer produce oil,
but 100 percent water. We have found that the saturation of those
sands is less than 2 or 3 percent, which, of course, means that there is
very little oil clinging to the sand.
If, on the other hand, we had produced the wells at a high rate of
flow the pressure in the wells would have gone out and the oil would
have become viscous and sticky, and instead of making a recovery of
97 to 98 percent as indicated by the saturation left in the sands, the
recovery under the old extraction methods would have been about from
10 to 15 percent, leaving 85 to 90 percent in there to be recovered by
some other method. It might have been recovered by secondary
methods later on, but at great cost.
This chart which I have here, and which I have distributed, just
about tells my story about the Texas field and the oil reserves. There
are 11,478,790,000 barrels of oil in fields already discovered, and ready
to be produced if, as, and when needed, or 566/, percent of all the oil
reserves in the United States. There are wells in the East Texas field
that do not produce and which could produce if allowed to do so 30,000
barrels per day.. They are now allowed to produce only 20 barrels per
day, and they have only 12 days a month to do that, and they are shut
down the other 18 and not allowed to produce at all.
Mr. CULKIN. You mean 20,000 instead of 20, do you not?
Colonel THOMPSON. Well, we could produce 30,000 barrels a day if
allowed to produce, but they are allowed to produce 20 barrels a day
18 days a month.
Mr. RANKIN. At the present rate of production, how long would that
11,000,000,000 barrels last?
Colonel THoMPsoN. In order to get that you would divide your
production rate right now, which is an average of 378,000 barrels a day;
divide that into 2,700,000,000, which would show that they would be
producing 50 years from now, and we have many fields in the State
even more greatly restrained than that. I suppose that there are 50
fields in the State that at the present rate of allowable production will
be producing 100 years from now.
Mr. RANKIN. The Bureau of Mines says that in January the State
of Texas was producing 1,550,000 barrels a day.
Colonel THOMPsON. Yes; that is what we were producing some time
ago, but not now. The latest figure is 960,000 barrels per day.
Mr. C TLKIN. Are you observing that limit?
Colonel THOMPSON. The first week of the month we had a figure of
890,000 barrels as against 960,000, and the next week it was 1,210,000.
Mr. RANKIN. If kept up at the rate of production it would cut down
your supply to about 25 years?
Colonel THOMlPSON. No, sir; the rate I have told you about is
1,500,000 barrels a day. I am sure that we have enough oil in Texas
to produce that rate of 1,500,000 barrels a day for at least 30 years.
Mr. RANKIN. At that rate your known producing fields would be
exhausted within that time.







40 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

Colonel THOMPSON. But we are discovering new fields right along,
all the time. There are in Texas more than 1,000,000 people who
receive their incomes either wholly or largely from oil.
Mr. RANKIN. But if you discovered no additional fields, production
at that rate of 1,500,000 barrels a day would exhaust the Texas fields
in 20 or 25 years.
Colonel THOMPSON. Of course, many fields, Congressman, would
last for many years more than others, but averaged up, I am sure that
we have 30 years' supply in Texas at that rate of production.
Mr. RANKIN. But if there is no more discovered in the meantime,
at the end of 30 years you would just be washed out.
Colonel THO IPeON. But we contemplate the discovery of additional
and new fields throughout the State.
Mr. RANKIN. This map on the board shows the pipe lines in your
State, and if you notice nearly all of them go down to the coast.
Colonel ThioMPsoN. We have been shipping around 1,000,000 bar-
rels a day. Eighty-seven percent of our oil shipped out of the State
of Texas goes by boat and the balance goes by rail.
The CHAIRMAN. And some by pipe line.
Colonel TIoriPSON. Yes; by pipe line to the coast, and then by
tankers and barge.
The CHAIRMAN. All of your oil produced in Texas is connected
by pipe line with the coast practically ?
Colonel THoM PSON. Yes; practically all of it, except that which is
refined in local areas. We have refineries in almost every section
of the State that serve that local territory. This map indicates that
nearly 1,000.000 of our people get their income from oil, and our
revenue in the State is practically 50 percent from oil, and the tax
on gasoline is very important to our State as well as to other States,
and I want to say that the railroads have certainly surprised every-
one, and I think even themselves, on the fine job they have done in
moving oil. Their performance has been magnificent, and they have
moved around 658,000 barrels of oil a day, and by bringing in about
15,000 more cars which are being brought in as fast as they can be
brought in by relieving them from local service, and putting them
in line service it is hoped that they can move around 800.000 barrels
of oil a day, but that still leaves a shortage of around 600,000 barrels
a day, 600,000 or 700,000 barrels a day to even meet at this time
the requirements for oil.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you have charge of the railroads as well as of
oil production?
Colonel THOM2PSON. No, sir; we regulate such things as taking down
a station, or something like that, but that is all.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the percentage of the railroad tank cars
owned by the railroads, and what percentage of them is owned by
the oil companies ?
Colonel THOMPSON. We do not have that figure, Mr. Chairman, but
a very small percentage of the tank cars are owned by the railroad
companies. The tank cars are mostly owned by the companies that
use them in their service or by an equipment company that rents them
out, but there are 45,000 tank cars that are now in service, and 15.000
more are being rounded up for service. Pipe lines are being rear-
ranged throughout the United States so as to handle about 200,000






INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 41

barrels more per day over the present movement. So, if the rails
can move 800,000 barrels a day, and 200,000 can be moved by addi-
tional arrangement of pipe lines going north, by hooking up differ-
ent lines with each other, you would have about 1,000,000 barrels
which would still leave us 600,000 barrels to be moved in some other
way.
Mr. CULKIN. There are many of these pipe lines out of use now,
are there not ?
Colonel Tl-omPSON. No; they are all being used more or less when
there is something to be moved.
Mr. CULKIN. Some of that pipe line in Texas might be transferred
to Florida; is not that possible?
Colonel THOiMPSON. Yes, sir; that is possible and it is being done
in other districts through the West.
Mr. CULKIN. Would you have enough available pipe line there now>
not needed or used to take care of this pipe line which is needed
in Florida?
Colonel THIoalPsoN. It would depend upon the size of the pipe used.
I happen to know an official of a pipe company that told me this
morning that they had 183 miles of 8-inch pipe that they were ready
to transport from Texas to Florida and they could have it in by the
end of 120 days. That is an 8-inch line with a capacity of 40,000 or
50,000 barrels of gasoline a day.
Mr. CULKIN. I think the Chief Engineer spoke about a 24-inch
pipe line.
Colonel THOMPSON.-That would have to be built. There is no pipe
line like that in our State. That is the very large pipe line we ask
to be constructed, but you asked about old pipe ?
Mr. CTLIIN. Yes.
Colonel THOMPSON. The old pipe is smaller than that. The pipe
I have reference to here, in answer to your question, is 8-inch pipe,
and this pipe-line company, the American Liberty Pipeline Co. has
160 miles to 183 miles of pipe that they say they can take up and
move and relay it and have it in operation in 120 days, and these areo
their estimates of the whole operation.
Mr. CULKIN. At what cost?
Colonel THOMPSON. At a cost of ::.:''.',-:r4, according to their esti-
mate. They simply told me that if that question was asked that they
would be glad to move their line.
The CHAIRMAN. Where is the. line located now?
Colonel THoMPSON. From east Texas down to the Gulf. Many of
these lines have been hauling oil from the oil fields to the Gulf coast,
to the coast storage which is full, and they cannot haul any more there.
and that is the reason they are idle.
The CHAIRMAN. They have no place to store it?
Colonel THOMPsoN. No, sir; they have no place to store it; they are
already full.
Mr. DONDERO. Do you know anything about a pipe line from Pitts-
burgh to the Atlantic coast line ?
Colonel THo-NIPoN. No, sir; I just know about lines in Texas only,
and not too much about that.
The CHAIRMAN. I will state. Mr. Dondero, that a gentleman from
the Interior Department will be here tomorrow with that information.







42 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

Colonel THOMPSON. May I say that Maj. J. R. Parton, of the Office
of the Petroleum Coordinator as Transportation Director, is most well
informed on this subject. We think the Department is very lucky in
getting him because he is an independent oil man from our State that
is experienced in these problems.
The CHAIRMAN.. He is going to be here the day after tomorrow.
Colonel THOMPSON. Major Parton?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. How many oil tanker cars did you say there are in the
United States today, Colonel Thompson ?
Colonel THOMPSON. There are 45,000 of them in use today, and 15,-
000 more that are being gathered in to be used.
Mr. RANKIN. How many days does it take for them to turn around ?
Colonel THOMPsON. Well, there are 45,000 that are in use, and there
will be 15,000 more, and it takes about 16 days for the turn-around.
Mr. RANKIN. How many gallons do they hold ?
Colonel THOMPSON. I do not know.
"The CHAIRMAN. They hold 225 barrels.
Colonel THOMPSON. I am sure I do not know that either.
Mr. RANKIN. It takes 16 days for the turn-around ?
Colonel THOMPSON. For the turn-around; that is, from the Gulf
points. There is a proposal to build a 24-inch pipe line from some-
where in the east side of Texas straight to New Jersey, and I want to
say that that project certainly should go through also. It has no con-
flict with the intracoastal canal whatever, and both of these projects are
highly desirable and are very greatly needed. -I refer to the one that
Mr. Ickes has been talking of building for more than a year or two.
Mr. CULKEN. What happened to that? Was that knocked off in
the W. P. B., is that the situation ?
Colonel THOMPSON. I think priorities were refused on it twice. I
understand it is up again now.
The CHAIRMAN. Since then I understand they have proposed to
make it of thinner steel, roll it thinner to make it go further.
Colonel THOMPSON. I do hope that the members of the committee
get it through, because it is badly needed, and also this intracoastal
canal is badly needed, and the pipe-line project across the unfinished
part of the canal is certainly needed. We have the oil, and tne
people up here need it badly, and our people as well as the people
of other States get revenue from the oil and gasoline that is sold.
I noticed in the morning paper yesterday the State of New Jersey
was losing seven and a half million dollars a month on its gasoline
tax, ard every other State is doing the same. Our whoie State
economy is tied up in the prosperity of the oil business.
Mr. GREEN. I have in mind that this takes one-hundred-odd miles
of 8-inch pipe to complete this pipe line. They could go to Cedar
Key, Fla., which has a splendid 12-foot harbor, and cut across to
Palatka which has a 13-foot harbor on the St. Johns River. They
could put in that 8-inch pipe across there, a distance of about 80
miles and begin immediately to syphon the oil across the peninsula.
The CHAIRMAN. How would they get to Cedar Key?
Mr. GREEN. Through the open Gulf.
Colonel THOMPSON. I understand that they have applied for per-
mission, and that they are just awaiting approval to do that. I offer







INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 43

that to show that the thing is being considered by the people in
our State, and these people have their pumping equipment and
everything there. It is now in operation in Texas, and they could
move it over to Florida, and I think it might be of interest to know
that.
The CHAIRMAN. I think it is of extreme interest, and it is one of
the things we have been wanting to find out.
Mr. RANKIN. Colonel, which is the cheapest method of trans-
porting oil, by pipe line, by railroad, or barge ?
Colonel THOMPSON. Well, Mr. Congressman, according to a study
which was made of the oil movement of the year 1937 water moved
87.92 percent of the oil at a cost per ton mile of 0.3063 milks.
Mr. CULKEN. Give me that figure again, please.
Colonel THOMPSON. 0.3063 mills per ton-mile.
Mr. RANKIN. All right.
Colonel THOMPSON. The railroads handled 2.07 percent at a cost
per-ton mile of 0.01640. The pipe lines handled crude and handled
6.31 percent of the volume at a cost of 0.00477 per ton-mile; the pipe
lines handled gasoline and handled 3.16 percent at a cost per ton-
mile of 0.00527 -mills. The trucks handled 0.055 percent at a cost
per ton-mile of 0.04873.
Mr. RANKIN. And your barge transportation is cheapest, of course ?
Colonel THOMPSON. Oh, yes; it is far cheaper.
Mr. CULKIN. That includes tanker movement up the coast, of course '
Colonel THOMPSON. That includes all water movement.
Mr. SMrrH. Who prepared those figures that you gave, Colonel?
Colonel THOMPSON. Those figures were prepared for testimony before
the T. N. E. C. in Washington in 1939, and they are found on page 274
in the testimony given before T. N. E. C.
Mr. CULKIN. Who gave that testimony ?
Colonel THOMPSON. That testimony was given by a man by the name
of Pugh.
Mr. CULKIN. That is the Sun Oil Co. ?
Colonel THoMPSON. Yes; the Sun Oil Co. but the testimony was
compiled by the American Petroleum Institute and not by the Sun Oil
Co.
Mr. CULKIN. Less than one-third of a mill per ton-mile ?
Colonel THOMPSON. About that; yes.
Mr. MILLER. The figures on the cost of moving oil by these various
methods as given by the Chief of Engineers are as follows: 8 mills
per ton-mile by rail; 1.25 mills per ton-mile by deep-draft tanker;.
3 mills per ton-mile by pipe line; and 2 to 2.50 mills per ton-mile by
barge.
The CHAIRMAN. According to that, the tanker is the cheapest, I.t r,-
next, and pipe line next?
Colonel THOMPSON. Yes, sir; that is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. And then. rail is next.
Colonel THOMPSON. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. It does not give it by highway truck ?
Colonel THOMPSON. That will be still higher.
Mr. RANKIN. The cost of transporting oil by truck would be the
highest, by railroad the next highest, by pipe line next, and water
transportation would be the cheapest.
Colonel THOMPSON. Yes, sir.







44 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

Mr. RANKIN. According to my figures here, and according to figures
you give us, Mr. Miller, it would cost about six times as much to take
it by rail as it would to take it by water, or probably a little more than
that.
Colonel THOMPsoN. Right now the movement of petroleum products
and crude to the East from the producing field is costing the com-
panies who are moving it around $600,000 a day, or nearly $1 a barrel
more than they are getting for it, and the cost to the industry is
about $560,000 a day, due to the pressing need of getting it and due
to the fact that the cost of transportation has gone up.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. McGann calls my attention to the fact that the
railroad transportation would be four times as costly as barge-line
transportation and about six times as costly, I believe, as tanker trans-
portation. I want to get those figures in the record for ready reference.
Colonel THOMPSON. So I want'to say, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen
of the committee, that I certainly hope that this intracoastal canal will
be officially authorized to be completed, and that the pipe line will be
laid just as promptly as possible, so that Texas can supply this oil
that is so badly needed by the people in the East and the Northeast.
"We have the oil, and we are able to produce it in greatly increased
quantities, and we feel that we have conserved our resources in such
a way as to be ready when the need comes.
Mr. RANKIN. Whether it came out of Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico,
Kansas, Mississippi, or Louisiana, it would have to go over this same
barge line.
Colonel THOMPSON. That is right, and you are going to have great
discoveries in Mississippi, too, Mr. Rankin.
Mr. RANKIN. The oil from that entire field would go through this
barge canal.
The CHAIRMAN. I would like to have your view about this point,
please, Colonel: From the figures on the cost of transportation by the
various carriers, it is a foregone conclusion, is it not, that if peace is
ever restored and the tankers are returned to us that these other means
of transportation will become obsolete, will they not ?
Colonel THOMPsoN. You mean these pipe lines ?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Colonel THOMPSON. That is, the pipe lines will become obsolete!
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; they cannot compete with the tankers, that is,
the coastwise tankers.
Colonel THOMPSON. I think, Mr. Chairman, that actually we are
going to have the most phenomenal demand for gasoline that we have
ever known, with all of these hundreds of thousands of airplanes and
other new means of transportation worked out, that we are going to
see the greatest demand that we have ever dreamed of. Now, our past
experience in this respect will seem as nothing, and all of these methods
of transportation will be needed to meet the demand.
Mr. RANKIN. I was just going to say that a pipe line does not serve
the independent oil producer. It serves the monopoly, the big concerns,
does it not ?
Colonel THOMPSON. In our State, Mr. Congressman, the pipe lines
are common carriers, and anyone who wishes to can ship his oil over
them.







INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 45

Mr. RANKIN. Take these pipe lines we are preparing for construc-
tion, of course, if the Government owns them, they might make them
common carriers so that anybody could ship oil through them.
Colonel THO1PSON. And they should be; yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. But if your pipe line should fall into the hands of some
big monopoly, the little independent producer would be shut out.
Colonel THOMPsoN. I think most of them are common carriers now,
and anyone who has oil to ship can have it shipped over the pipe lines,
but actually the one who is a producer does not want to ship the oil.
He wants to sell it at the well, and he wants to get his money without
too much bother. In 10 years I have only had one man who wrote
to us about wanting to ship it. We have these wells shut down as I
have said, very low, and our State is most anxious ot have outlets for
this oil. We are just as anxious to produce it as the people up here
are anxious to have the gasoline. I feel that the construction of this
canal and the pipe line and the construction of additional barges arv
highly necessary, even from the military standpoint.
Mr. RANKIN. But you would regard the pipe line as merely a tempo-
rary expedient ? That is, the construction of the pipe line across this
Florida Peninsula?
Colonel THOMPSON. Well, 3 years would be permanent for a pipe line.
It would pay for itself before the 3 years were over.
Mr. RANKIN. I understand; but you would not regard the putting
the pipe line across Florida as a permanent solution of our problem?
Colonel THOMPSON. No; you must have your canal to go along with
it, because we have many products besides gas and oil that we want to
ship over that canal. Besides wanting this canal to ship gas and oil
to the East, we want to ship things back from the East so as to get
freight-rate reductions and to get the benefit of cheaper water trans-
portation.
Mr. RANKIN. When you suggested that I was going to suggest that
these vessels coming back from the East would be bringing their
finished products to the oil-producing States.
Colonel THOMPSON. Yes.
Mr. HALL. It is my understanding that we are discussing these prob-
lems today more as a matter of national defense than anything else.
Mr. CULKIN. The public has no rights ?
Mr. HALL. Just a minute; I do not yield to the gentleman. We have
testimony here to the effect that it would take about 3 years to complete
the barge canal and we have testimony here to the effect that the pipe
line will take about 6 months. Colonel, which do you think is most
necessary from the national defense standpoint, looking at the picture
as we have it now ? Do you not think we should immediately build the
pipe line?
Colonel THOMiPSON. The war may last more than 3 years, and I
understand General Reybold said in 3 years we could finish this canal,
and I figure that all of our preparation ought to be on the long-pull
basis, because we should not figure ourselves that this thing is going to
be over in 3 years, because it may take 5 or 6 years.
Mr. HALL. Do you not think if we can build the pipe line imme-
diately-if there is authority in law right now to build the pipe line-
that that should be done?







46 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

Colonel THOMPSON. If it were up to me, I would make doubly sure
by authorizing the pipe line and instructing that it be built this year,
at the same time starting going on the intracostal canal, and I would
start building barges. I would do all three at the same time.
Mr. HALL. In comparison with the average tanker, how much does
a barge carry?
Colonel THOMPSON. About 9,000 barrels.
Mr. HALL. How much does a tanker carry ?
Colonel THOMPSON. The modern tankers being built now will carry
around 138,000 to 150,000 barrels.
Mr. HALL. You can carry 9,000 barrels on a barge and 138,000 barrels
on a tanker?
Colonel THOMPSON. Yes; 138,000 barrels on the new ones.
Mr. HALL. One hundred and thirty-eight thousand?
Colonel THOMPSON. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Th6se are the very largest ones.
Colonel THOMPSON. Yes; the very newest and the largest.
The CHAIRMAN. However, you have some of them operating on the
Gulf that carry only 50,000.
Colonel THOMPSON. Yes, sir; that is correct. Some of them carry
70,000 barrels, some 75,000, some 80,000, and some 85,000 barrels.
Mr. HALL. Then there is another point, the question of speed. Let
us assume that a tanker left some point in Texas and a barge left the
same point in Texas, what is the difference in time so far as delivery is
concerned at the port of New York ?
Colonel THOMPSON. Now ?
Mr. HALL. Yes; at any time.
Colonel THOMPSON. A great many of them now do not get there at all.
Mr. HALL. I mean at any time.
Colonel THOMPSON. You mean in peacetime ?
Mr. HALL. At any time. You do not have to answer that way be-
cause we know no barges are going there now.
Colonel THOMPSON. Yes, sir. A tanker takes about 16 days to make
the trip.
Mr. HALL. What time would a barge take ?
Colonel THOMPSON. I just do not know the answer to that. I am
not familiar with barge operation.
Mr. HALL. Do you know how fast those barges move ?
Colonel THOMPSON. I understand they move at the rate of 3 miles
an hour.
Mr. HALL. How fast do the tankers move ?
Colonel THOMPSON. Some of them go as high as 18 knots an hour.
Mr. HALL. Do you not think after the war that that speed of de-
livery will have something to do with what method is used ?
Colonel THOMPSON. Perhaps so; yes, sir.
Mr. CULKIN. I wanted to ask you a question about the Mississippi
route. That has not been mentioned here by anybody that I have
heard. Now, is that route being used at the present time ?
Colonel THOMPSON. There are about 78,000 barrels going up the
Mississippi and Ohio Rivers.
Mr. CULKIN. That goes on the Ohio River ?
Colonel THOMPSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. CULKIN. Does any of it go into the Great Lakes ?







INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 47

Colonel THOMPSON. I just do not know about that, sir.
Mr. CULKIN. Why is not that also a feasible route which is already
in existence?
Colonel THOMPSON. It probably is.
Mr. CULKIN. You are not prepared to offer any suggestions on that ?
Colonel THOMPSON. No, sir; I am not.
Mr. CTKIN. The Gulf intracoastal connects up with the Mississippi,
and the Mi.-is-ippi with the Illinois, and then the Great Lakes, does
it not?
Colonel THOMPSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. CULKIN. What did you say the total carried up in the Ohio was?
Colonel THOMPSON. Seventy-eight thousand barrels per day.
Mr. CULKIN. This is probably a little aside from the trend of your
testimony, but the prices of gasoline have been frozen, have they not?
Colonel THOMPSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. CULKIN. It is the contention of the people supplying this gaso-
line that they are taking a heavy loss at this time by reason of the
transportation methods used now, is that true?
Colonel THOMPSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. CULKIN. They are promised some remedy, are they not, accord-
ing to the press?
Colonel THOMPSON. They are hunting for a remedy.
Mr. CULKIN. No; they are promised some remedy ?
Colonel THOMPSON. I believe they are hoping to have either an in-
crease in price to compensate for it, or to get a subsidy.
Mr. CULKIN. The estimate on that is 5 cents a gallon additional?
Colonel THOMPSON. I understand their losses are about $560,000 a
day.
Mr. CULKIN. How much would that be a gallon, Colonel?
Colonel THOMPSON. It is about 90 cents a barrel, and there are 42
gallons in a barrel, which would be about two and a quarter cents a
gallon.
Mr. CULKIN. I have seen it estimated as 5 cents a gallon.
Colonel THOMPSON. They have had two small raises.
Mr. CULKIN. Which the public, of course, will be compelled to take
on by reason of this more expensive railroad type of transportation, is
not that true ?
Colonel THOMPSON. Well, I suppose the public will pay it one way
or the other, certainly.
Mr. CULKIN. We cannot forget the public.
Colonel THOMPSON. Well, Jones pays the freight.
The CHAIRMAN. If the Members of Congress hold X cards they will
have most of it to pay.
Mr. CULKIN. The public will have to pay through the nose for gaso-
line, and it is going to take at least 5 cents additional a gallon in the
very near future by reason of this increased cost of transportation.
Colonel THOMPSON. Certainly 21/2 cents a gallon, at least 21/2 cents a
gallon.
Mr. RANKIN. Colonel, you were speaking to the gentleman from New
York, Mr. Hall, who asked you if it would not take about 3 years to
construct this intracoastal canal. As a matter of fact, we could con-
struct the canal across from Port Inglis to Jacksonville in about 15
72774-42---4






48 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

months, according to the Army engineers. That can be used at least
90 percent of the time and probably more than that. It could be used
more than 90 percent of the time, because someone said there were only
about 15 days out of the year that the barges could not go all the way
down to Port Inglis. So, then, if this pipe line were constructed they
could finish the canal proper across from Port Inglis to Jacksonville
within 15 months. We could have done it while we have been delaying
on this rivers and harbors bill. That would enable those barges to go
through practically all of the time with the exception of probably 1
day out of a month when they would have storms in the Gulf of Mexico.
So that, instead of taking 3 or 4 years, the testimony shows that it will
take about 15 months to construct that main barge canal across from
Port Inglis to Jacksonville.
Colonel THoMPSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. That would give us, then, a barge canal from the
border of Mexico all the way around to New Jersey ?
Colonel THOMPSON. Yes, sir; that is right.
Mr. RANKIN. I just wanted to call attention to that fact, that instead
of taking 3 or 4 years, it would take about 15 months.
Mr. HALL. I was taking the testimony of General Reybold on that.
Mr. RANKIN. I know, but Mr. Hall, you were talking about a canal
all the way from St. Joe on down to Port Inglis and then across.
Mr. HALL. And which I understand in the proposition of General
Revbold.
Mr. RANKIN. But he testified that would provide an outlet at Port
Inglis and with the exception of about 1 day out of a month these ves-
sels could come right on down to the Gulf of Mexico, right along the
coast line and go right on through this canal and serve their purpose
except 1 day out of the month.
Mr. HALL. How about the submarine hazard out in the Gulf ? Are
we not trying to get rid of that, too?
Mr. RANKIN. There has been no submarine hazard in that area. Of
course, a submarine could come 'into the Mississippi Sound, as far as
that is concerned, and I presume it could get pretty close to New Or-
leans, but the main submarine hazard is out around near the Dragon's
Mouth, off the coast of South America in the Winward Passage and
the Florida Straits. This would give them virtually the same protec-
tion that they would get going inside through the canal. The only
reason for that canal from St. Johns down to Port Inglis is to avoid the
weather hazards, as I understand it.
The CHAIRMAN. No, sir; also submarines.
Mr. HALL. I thought the submarine hazard was the whole question.
The CHAIRMAN. Both.
Mr. RANKIN. As far as that is concerned there is no submarine
hazard in the Mississippi Sound.
Mr. HALL. These submarines seem to have been found in those places
where you do not want them.
The CHAIRMAN. Mississippi Sound has no connection with this, as it
is located several hundred miles west of this area.
Mr. RANKIN. Even if you go 30 miles through the Gulf of Mexico
for that short distance it would be close enough to the shore that they
could be protected.
Mr. CULKIN. They are sinking them right off the coast.







INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 49

Mr. GREEN. What Mr. Rankin is getting at is that you could pro-
tect them for 100 miles with a convoy very much easier than you could
for 1,000 miles.
Mr. RANKIN. Yes; and the weather hazard would be almost in-
finitesimal, so that you could provide a canal across the Florida Penin-
sula and within 15 months that would virtually solve your problem,
together with the pipe line the gentlemen are talking about.
Mr. HALL. Except for the submarine hazard.
Mr. RANKIN. Except for the submarine hazard; yes.
Colonel THOMPsoN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and gen-
tlemen of the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Colonel, we are very much obliged to you.
Colonel THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the
invitation to appear here.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. MILLER. Of course, it is true that petroleum and its products
probably constitute a most important commodity from the stand-
point of the war effort and the national defense, but there are many
other commodities in the southwest, particularly from Louisiana and
Texas, which are moving in tremendous volume, and which even now
require a much larger channel. I desire now to present Mr. Henry
De Bardeleben, who has pioneered in barge service on the intracoastal
waterway, and is probably as familiar,as anyone is with reference
to the tremendous tonnage now moving through the canal and the
difficulties which are being encountered by reason of the inadequate
channel dimensions. Mr. De Bardeleben, of the Coyle Lines of New
Orleans.

STATEMENT OF HENRY F. DE BARDELEBEN, REPRESENTING THE
COYLE LINES, NEW ORLEANS, LA.
The CHAIRMAN. Proceed in your own way, Mr. De Bardeleben.
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Mr. Chairman, our company has been engaged
in this type of work since 1865, and we have pioneered here in the
waterway along the Gulf coast.
In 1934 over this waterway we handled about 18,000 tons. In
1941 we handled over 1,200,000 tons. We operate between Corpus
Christi and Apalachicola. Last year we had sailings between New
Orleans and Houston, Tex., every 18 hours, one out of Houston every
18 hours on the average. The distance in that line is some 410 miles.
That part of the waterway is 9 feet deep and 100 feet wide. Our
line connects New Orleans with the combined carriers from the Ohio,
the upper Mississippi, and the Mississippi River, the Cumberland
River, and the Warrior River that takes barges on to Texas points.
We handle principally oil, steel, pipe, sulfur, salt cake, petroleum
in bulk, petroleum in packages, and petroleum coke. Petroleum coke
is used in the manufacture of aluminum.
Last November our regulated carriers' committee filed a report
and compiled information on all of these waterways as to what they
were doing, and I will just give you briefly a few of the facts that
were brought out in this report. One was that the movement of
gasoline in 1941 over this waterway increased 183 percent. Another
was that the movement of crude oil increased 18 percent, and that







50 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

the movement of refined products other than gasoline increased 50
percent, and the movement of sulfur increased 50 percent.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you say that was a 9-foot channel?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes, sir; 9 feet deep and 100 feet wide.
Mr. RANKIN. Extending all the way to the Gulf of Mexico ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. NO, sir; from Corpus Christi, Tex., to
Apalachicola, Fla.
Mr. RANKIN. I thought they said this morning it was 12 feet deep.
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. No, sir; the proposal is to deepen it to 12 feet.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that is the proposal.
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. I urge-and I think every operator on the
waterway would urge the same thing-deepening of that canal im-
mediately to 12 feet and widening of the canal to 125 feet. We have
a shortage of critical materials. We cannot get steel for the construc-
tion of engines, boats, and barges, and the best way to get more use out
of the equipment we now have is to move it faster and load it deeper,
and actually by widening and deepening the canal we can increase the
capacity of our present equipment at least 25 percent.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you moved any crude oil in wooden barges,
Mr. De Bardeleben ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. No, sir; I have not, but I know it has been done,
is being done, and can be done.
Mr. SMIT. What type of petroleum, Mr. De Bardeleben, did you
say was used in the production of aluminum ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Petroleum coke is used in the manufacture of
electrodes which are used in connection with the manufacture of alum-
inum, and we handle about 60,000 tons a month from Port Arthur to
New Orleans.
The CHAIRMAN. All from Port Arthur ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes, sir; from Port Arthur.
Mr. CULKIN. Do you know the capacity of that Corpus Christi to
Apalachicola canal?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. What is the capacity of it?
Mr. CULKIN. Yes; in tonnage.
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. That would be pretty hard to answer.
Mr. CULKIN. You are an expert operator; give me an estimate of it.
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. They moved approximately 25,000,000 tons this
year.
Mr. CULKIN. Is it used, in your judgment, to capacity now ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. NO, sir.
Mr. CULKIN. Can you carry more than that on it?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes, sir.
Mr. CULKIN. How much more; twice as much ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. I think so.
Mr. CULKIN. That would make 50,000,000 tons on the present canal t
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. That is right, sir.
Mr. CULKIN. Would you not have to close off that canal in order to
improve it ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. NO, sir; it has been improved from time to.
time; it has been widened, and the bends have been straightened up.
Mr. CULKIN. And it has been kept up all the time?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes, sir; it has been kept up all the time, never
stopped operation.







INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 51

Mr. CULKIN. But that will go, in your judgment, to about 50,000,000
tons if the capacity is expanded ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. I would not say that would be the capacity
of it.
Mr. CULKIN. You think it is greater than that ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes, sir; probably it is.
Mr. RANKIN. How fast does the traffic move on this canal?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Our boats with an average of 3,000 tons make
from 3 to 31/2 miles, depending on the weather and the winds.
Mr. RANKIN. How long are the barges?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. They vary in size. Our tows are limited to
four barges. That is one reason we want the canal improved. The
United States Army engineers say no tow shall exceed 750 feet in
length.
Mr. RANKIN. How long are those barges that you use?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. The barges are from 175 feet to 195 feet in
length, and the width is from 26 feet to 45 feet.
Mr. RANKIN. If the gentleman from New York is a mathematician
he can figure out how many tons pass a given point in a given time.
Mr. CULKIN. I am sorry, I will have to leave the gentleman to his
own mathematics.
Mr. RANKIN. The gentleman from New York asked for this
information.
Mr. CULKIN. Are you through, Mr. Rankin?
Mr. *RANKIN. Yes.
Mr. CuLKIN. How about the bottoms you have there now? Can
you do more work now with the existing bottoms, or will you need
additional bottoms ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Do we need additional bottoms ?
Mr. CULKIN. Can you do more work with the present bottoms at
the present time?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. The only way to get more capacity out of our
present equipment is to deepen the canal so as to be able to load the
barges to their complete capacity.
Mr. CULKIN. HOW many tons would that be per barge?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. It would vary depending upon the size of the
barge. Some barges might take 100 tons more, and some might take
50 tons more per barge. In other words we load the barges now 7
feet 6.
Mr. CULKIN. What I am getting at is what you can carry with your
present bottoms, and how much you can increase the present tonnage
carried ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. I am not in a position to answer that question
on petroleum products. As far as other products are concerned I
would say that east bound the barges are moving to the full capacity
of the draft that they are now permitted to load to. If they can be
loaded to deeper draft you would automatically increase it 25 percent.
Mr. BOYKIN. Do you know whether it would be safe to do that?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. I certainly feel that should be done-
Mr. BOYKIN. How much do you think could be towed in a tow now ?
The CHAIRMAN. But they have a regulation on that.
Mr. BOYKIN. Sometimes they change their minds if you show them
you can do it better.






52 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. When we first started operating on this canal
we handled five barges in a tow.
Mr. BOYKIN. Did you have any trouble with them ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes; we had some, but not a great deal.
Mr. BOYKIN. Have they straightened out some of the bends in the
canal?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes, sir; they have straightened out some of
the bends, and made improvements in the waterway since then.
Mr. BOYKIN. Mr. Chairman, that might be a way to increase it a
little.
Mr. RANKIN. Those five barges carried about 15,000 barrels?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Those particular barges were about si'-, i..i rel
barges.
Mr. RANKIN. About 4.000 barrels in all?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. A great many of your barges carry a little more
than that, do they not ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Oh, yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Some of them carry 9,000, do they not?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes, sir; some of them carry 9,000, and quite
a few of them are larger than that.
The CHAIRMAN. As to those large ones, you usually just have three
of them in a tow, do you not ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes; three in some of them, and some of them
we operate with two in a tow. Some of those barges are 17,000-
barrel barges.
The CHAIRMAN. On this narrow canal you pull and do not push
your tows ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes, sir; it is all tandem towing, just the
same as an engine pulling a train of cars.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you operate any of them on the Mississippi
River?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. No, sir; we do not operate north of New
Orleans, but they are operating up the Mississippi River.
The CHAIRMAN. But the others are operating them ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. They carry 8 or 10 barges in a tow ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes, sir; 8 to 10.
The CHAIRMAN. And it is the same way up the Ohio River ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes, sir; that is right, sir.
Mr. CULKIN. Do you go up the Mississippi River at all ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Up until about 2 years ago we navigated as
far north as Memphis.
Mr. CULKIN. And you have not been up the Ohio River ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. NO, sir; our boats do not operate that far
north.
Mr. CULKIN. Those are sheltered waters up the Ohio until you get
into the Great Lakes.
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. We take barges from Pittsburgh to Houston,
the same barge and the same load over all the sections of the water-
way.
Mr. CULKIN. You take them outside ?






INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 53

Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. No, sir; through the canal. During the
month of April, as I understand, there were 1,730,000 barrels of
petroleum products moved north on the Mississippi River.
Mr. CULKIN. How much sulfur do you carry ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. We are carrying about 50,000 tons of sulfur a
month. As to the sulfur we are moving out of Galveston now, the
majority of it is destined to Chicago, for movement beyond Chicago
on Great Lakes vessels.
Mr. CULKIN. Sulfur comes mostly from Louisiana, does it not?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. All the sulfur we handle comes from
Galveston.
The CHAIRMAN. In my district.
Mr. CULKIN. I think we ought to have some light here on the es-
sential character of sulfur. This plan here does not do anything
about sulfur.
The CHAIRMAN. You cannot put sulfur in a pipe line.
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. The total amount of sulfur that we hope to
move this year will be approximately 600,000 tons.
Mr. CLKIN. How much?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Approximately 600,000 tons.
Mr. CULKIN. That would come from Louisiana and Texas?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. No; that is from Texas.
Mr. CULKIN. From Texas?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes, sir; and the reason that sulfur is going
that way is because they cannot move it coastwise.
Mr. CULKIN. I heard Huey Long say one time that Louisiana
furnished most of the sulfur.
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. They do furnish a lot of it.
Mr. RANKIN. You said a while ago that these five barges carried
about 800 barrels each; is that right?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. I meant 8,000 barrels each, sir.
Mr. CULKIN. 8,000 barrels each?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes, sir.
Mr. CULKIN. 8,000 barrels each would be what in a tow?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. 40,000 barrels in a tow.
Mr. CULKIN. 40,000 barrels; and they average about 180 feet in
length?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. No, sir; these smaller barges that I am speak-
ing about are 175 feet long. Those are the only barges that you
could possibly put five in a tow. If you get to the big barges, those
195 feet in length, three or four would be the maximum that you
could put in a tow.
Mr. RANKIN. Just take an average of 180 feet, that would be 900
feet for the five barges?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. You said they would go 3 miles an hour. Five of
those barges would pass in an hour. That is, five of those tows
could pass each hour, of 40,000 barrels each and in 24 hours that
would be 4,800,000 barrels a day; is that a correct estimate?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. If you had a solid line of barges from one
end of the canal to the other.
Mr. RANKIN. You could almost use a solid line of barges if it were
necessary ?






54 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. There is nothing to stop you from doing it.
Mr. RANKIN. That is what I am trying to bring forcibly to the atten-
tion of the gentleman from New York-that the amount of oil which
you could carry over this canal if it were deepened-if you stopped
everything else, would be almost unlimited.
Mr. BOYKIN. That is, if you stopped everything else ?
Mr. RANKIN. Yes; if you stopped everything else.
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes, sir; that is right; there is no limit to it;
the-only thing is to widen the canal so the tows can pass safely and there
is no danger of your tows colliding with each other.
Mr. BOYKIN. What else are they sending through this canal?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Iron, lumber, and steel.
Mr. BOYKIN. And salt and coal?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. And salt cake.
Mr. BOYKIN. And salt cake ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes; salt cake and piling.
Mr. RANKIN. In other words, you could take the entire oil supply of
the United States through this Intracoastal Canal?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. It is possible.
Mr. CULKIN. With a 9-foot depth?
Mr. RANKIN. No, sir; 12-foot depth. If you had a 12-foot channel
there and the facilities I am speaking of-the barges and the tows to
carry them-you could take through there, if you stopped taking every-
thing else, the entire oil supply of the United States.
Mr. CULKIN. What can you do with a 9-foot channel?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. It would be 25 percent less than you could carry
with a 12-foot channel.
Mr. CULKIN. That would carry the whole production of the Texas
oil fields?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. We estimated that 60 tugs, with 240 barges,
would move 120,000 barrels a day.
Mr. CULKIN. What is the character of your towing outfit; they are
Diesels, are they ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes, sir; they are all Diesels.
Mr. CULKIN. How long are they ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. The tugs are 85 feet long.
Mr. CULIIN. What is their horsepower?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. 600 horsepower.
Mr. RANKIN. They do not have any locks to go through?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. There are no lifts?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. There is a lift at Harvey, La., and that is
"because of the variation in the height of the Mississippi River.
Mr. RANKIN. How much lift is it?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. It may be 5 feet one day and the next day it
may be 10 feet.
The CHAIRMAN. Where the canal crosses the Mississippi River it
may be 10 feet higher one day than another.
Mr. CULKIN. Do you think it would be advisable to build wooden
barges or not ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. They have worked, and they have built them
for the last 100 years.
Mr. CULKIN. But you seem to have gone into steel largely.






INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 55

Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Steel is safer, and operates better, and the car-
rying capacity is greater.
Mr. CULKIN. But wood could be used, and they could be built speed-
ily there in your judgment?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes, sir.
Mr. CULKIN. And they would be entirely workable?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes, sir; I think so.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you any wooden towboats ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. No, sir; all of our towboats and tugboats are
made of steel. We formerly had them, but everybody has gotten away
from wood and gone to steel.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but we went away from buggies and went to
automobiles, too.
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. There would never be any question of a shortage of
water on this canal?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. No, sir; because it is fed from the Gulf.
Mr. RANKIN. SO that everything on this canal could move continu-
ously without interruption ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes, sir; that is right.
Mr. BOYKIN. What about the use of concrete barges ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. The draft of them would be such that their
carrying capacity would be very limited in the shallow waters.
Mr. BOYKIN. And they would be about as hard to get as steel?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And it would take more power to tow them too,
would it not?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes, sir; it would take more power to pull
wooden barges and concrete barges than it would be pull steel barges.
To move 120,000 barrels a day from Port Arthur, say, to Norfolk, Va.,
120 towboats and 480 barges would absolutely do the job of moving
120,000 barrels a day.
Mr. RANKIN. I do not know whether they would be strong enough,
but we can furnish you several million automobile motors if this rub-
ber shortage continues.
Mr. GREEN. As for the lumber, in my State they have it piled up in
large quantities, both pine and cyprus. Some of it has just been ready
for years.
Mr. RANKIN. They were saving it for that purpose?
Mr. GREEN. They were trying to sell it, but could not. There are
more than 30 small boatbuilding plants there very anxious to build
wooden barges.
Mr. BOYKIN. The same thing is true in New Orleans, Mobile, and
in Gulfport.
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes, sir. The total steel required in a barge
to carry oil, say a 10,000-barrel barge, is approximately 223 tons for
each barge.
Mr. BOYKIN. How long does a good steel barge last?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Their life is approximately calculated at any-
where from 15 to 20 years.
Mr. RANKIN. You are familiar with the Tombigbee River?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you think that would be a much better way for
barges to travel than to fight the current on the Mississippi River?







56 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. I am not in a position to answer that question.
Mr. RANKIN. It would be about 1,000 miles nearer.
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. We operate down the Warrior.
Mr. RANKIN. No; it would not be on the Warrior, but on the Tom-
bigbee.
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. You would be traveling in slack water coming up
stream, because there would be locks on the Tombigbee.
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. The development of any waterway is very
advantageous in this country.
Mr. RANKIN. It would save almost 1,000 miles in distance, and
besides, when you go up the Mississippi River, you fight terrific current
all the way up. That more than doubles the fuel cost.
Mr. BOYKIN. How long do you think it would take to deepen this
canal to 12 feet and widen it to 125 feet ?
Mr. DE BEDELEBEN. That would depend on the number of dredges
you put in.
Mr. BOYKIN. If you really went after it, how long do you think it
would take ?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. I am not qualified to answer that.
Mr. RANKIN. It is done with hydraulic dredges, and it would not
take long.
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. That is right.; it could be done very rapidly.
Mr. RANKIN. We have dredges now idle, have we not?
Mr. DE BARDELEBEN. I cannot say as to that. They have some of
them working in that area. They have five or six dredges working
down at Higgins Point.
Mr. RANKIN. You would be surprised at the amount of soil and
earth that one of those dredges moves.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions, gentlemen?
Thank you, sir.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, apropos of the question which Repre-
sentative Boykin just asked the witness as to the availability of dredg-
ing equipment, I think this should be called to the attention of the
committee. It is probably a fact that much of the dredging equipment
of the country is now engaged. This project should be authorized
and then the question of priority will be determined by those in au-
thority as to whether this particular project is more important than
some of those upon which this equipment is now being used. Witnesses
appearing before the committee now can hardly answer the question.
There is one phase of the matter that I think, Mr. Chairman, should
be called to the attention of the committee before we present the next
witness, and that is the purpose we had in mind in presenting Mr.
De Bardeleben: Most of the commodities which are produced in such
great abundance immediately adjacent to the Gulf Intracoastal Water-
way in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, particularly petroleum prod-
ucts and sulfur, are natural water-transportation products. They are
bulky and low in value, and the natural normal method of trans-
porting them is by water.
These products have been forced to rail by.reason of the almost
complete cessation of coastwise steamship service and the inadequacy
of equipment upon our inland waterways. That is chiefly responsible
for the very heavy burden which has been placed on the railroads.






INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 57

By the utilization of inland waterways for the transportation of
petroleum products, sulfur and other commodities. of that kind which
are produced in great abundance in the Southwest we will relieve the
railroads and probably prevent almost certain congestion of trans-
portation in the next few months, which is absolutely sure to happen
unless something of that kind is done.
I cannot give you the exact figures, but when coastwise service was
available a large part of the sulfur production of Texas and Louisiana
moved to points along the Atlantic seaboard and the Pacific seaboard
by steamship. That method of transportation is now completely out,
so that instead of handling little sulfur comparatively the railroads
are now called upon to handle, practically all of it with the exception
of that which is moved by barge up the Mississippi River into the Pitts-
burgh district, the Chicago district, and to the Great Lakes points.
I am not prepared to give you exactly the number of freight cars and
locomotives which are now engaged in the transportation of sulfur,
equipment which normally is employed in the movement of other
products, but I can assure you that the figures are tremendous. In
the great industrial areas of Norfolk, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Wil-
mington, and the Delaware River district there are tremendous quanti-
ties of sulfur consumed, several hundreds of thousands of tons annu-
ally. In normal times that sulfur was taken by coastwise steamboat
to Norfolk, Baltimore, Wilmington, Philadelphia, New York, and other
Atlantic seaboard ports, at a very low cost per ton. The rail trans-
portation cost is several dollars a ton. Of course, the cost of moving
it goes into the war program, and cost in that connection is not so
important now. If water transportation could be supplied for these
heavy basic raw materials like oil and sulfur, the saving in transpor-
tation costs would be tremendous, shortage would be prevented, and
an enormous amount of railroad equipment would be released to render
needed service of the character the railroads are designed to render.
Mr. CULKIN. Incidentally, it will make a net saving of from $6 to
$8 a ton on the transporting of this product, which, in the long run,
when peace does come, will be a great saving to American industry
and to the American people.
Mr. MILLER. It would be interesting if some statistician could ac-
curately figure out how much more the consuming public of this area
or the United States as a whole, but particularly those on the eastern
seaboard, are now paying because of the cost of transporting gasoline,
oil, and sulfur and other commodities of that sort which are products
which normally only move by water.
Mr. CULKIN. And which should move by water.
Mr. MILLER. And which should not be moved any other way and
which would not be moved any other way if the facilities for moving
them were provided.
Mr. CULKIN. The public does not know that, and I do not think
many fellows in Congress realize it.
Mr. MILLER. I think this matter is of such tremendous importance,
and I think it has such a very definite relationship to the war effort
and winning the war that I sincerely trust the members of the com-
mittee will take a broad view of this project and not attempt to say
which part of it shall be done first, and what part of it shall be
done last. The truth is that if we had completed a 12-foot inland







58 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

waterway from Mexico to Trenton, N. J., or Boston, and on up to
Maine, we could thumb our noses at the submarines, and we would
not be confronted with the very serious situation which this bill is
intended to help remedy.
Mr. CULKIN. What is the total movement of sulfur from the South-
west on the average ?
Mr. MILLER. You mean for the entire country ?
Mr. CULKIN. From the Southwest. You produce in Texas and
Louisiana approximately two and a half million tons.
Mr. MILLER. The sulfur industry has done a magnificent job in
meeting the war requirements. Sulfur, which is a basic commodity-
it has been called the king of chemicals-enters very largely into our
war effort, particularly the chemistry of the war effort, involving
explosives, and is second in importance only to fuel. It might be
said, Mr. Chairman, in all truthfulness that sulfur, oil, and gasoline
can and will win the war.
The CHAIRMAN. As to the sulfur movement a bulletin issued by the
United States Geological Survey a few years ago showed that 71.8
percent of the sulfuric acid consumed in the industries of the United
States was made from sulfur from Lousiana and Texas, and that
the rest was made from some sulfur byproducts principally of zinc
and copper, and some from pyrites. Now, there were 9,000,000 tons
of sulfuric acid used or consumed in industry that year. A ton of
sulfur of the degree of fineness of that produced in the mines of
Louisiana and Texas produces 4 tons of sulfuric acid of the type
that is used in industries, not of the chemical type, and it enters
into practically every industry of the United States. The two States
consuming most of it were New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and New
York was about third.
Mr. MILLER. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. YOU cannot transport sulfuric acid as such, because
it is so expensive and hazardous to transport. They transport the
sulfur and convert it into acid at destination at or near where it is
used. Practically all of the sulfur movement at the present time
goes to the industries in the Northeast. Is not that a fact?
Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir; that is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. About two and a half million tons.
Mr. MILLER. And if the chairman will permit an interruption,
probably 75 percent of all of that sulfur is produced in your district,
and 60 percent is from one mine.
Mr. CULKIN. I thought the Judge spoke feelingly about it.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rankin.
Mr. RANKIN. I would like to have the attention of the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Hall). A few moments ago we were talking
about this coastal line here [indicating on map], from Carrabelle
through to Port Inglis. For 25 miles out here [indicating on map]
toward here [indicating] it is not over 25 feet deep, and therefore
a submarine could not submerge in there and get out of sight. So, this
area right along here [indicating on map] would be practically safe
from submarine attack. Therefore, it seems to me the thing to do
would be to construct this canal across here from Jacksonville to
Port Inglis, and then if you want to build a pipe line further on up
do so. But it seems to me that as long as only about 1 day out of






INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 59

the month is there any trouble at all here as far as weather is con-
cerned, and it is naturally safe from submarine attack, that it would
eliminate the necessity of building this canal clear around here [indi-
cating on map] from Carrabelle to Port Inglis.
Mr. HALL. Do you mean to imply that engineers are presenting this
proposition, which will take 15 months longer to build, simply be-
cause 1 or 2 days a year the weather is bad ?
Mr. RANKIN. No; the Chief of Army Engineers, General Reybold,
told you this morning that this inland, inside passage would be en-
tirely safe the entire year, but he admitted on cross-examination that
there are only about 15 days a year in which these barges could not
travel this route here [indicating on map] in the open Gulf. Now,
since the gentleman from New York has raised the question that this
would be a dangerous route because these barges would be subject to
attack by submarines, I have made an investigation, and I have found
all the way here, about 25 miles out, that the water is not over 25
feet deep, and submarines cannot submerge and hide in water that is
that shallow.
Mr. HALL. I do not know how much water a submarine needs to sub-
merge in, but it can surely sail in that much water at night when they
do most of their attacking.
Mr. RANKIN. They have to have much more than that depth of water
to submerge in.
Mr. HALL. A submarine may not rest there in the daytime, but I
believe it can sail in that depth of water at night.
Mr. RANKIN. A submarine has to have water deep enough so that
it can submerge to such depth that it cannot be seen from the air, and
it cannot do that in 25 feet of water, and if one of them got close
enough to hit one of these barges it would take them an hour to get
out to sea into deep water, where they would be safe.
Mr. HALL. You are talking about the daytime, and they are at-
tacking at night.
Mr. RANKIN. Of course, they might be attacked at night, but at the
same time, these vessels might tie up at night, as they are doing on
the Atlantic seaboard. Today the vessels on the Atlantic seaboard
are going into port at night for that very reason. Besides, they could
be detected with searchlights.
Mr. GREEN. For that matter, the link across the State which can
be done in 10 or 15 months, according to General Markham's state-
ment, can be completed, and then if you have to convoy them over 100
miles during the construction of that other link, you certainly can
convoy 100 miles more easily than you can convoy 1,000 miles there.
Mr. RANKIN. You have only about 100 miles of open Gulf, and it is
only about 25 feet deep along the coast where these barges would travel.
For a distance of 25 miles out here [indicating] it is not over 25 feet
deep, so that the barges could tie up at night, as far as that is con-
cerned, and make that 100 miles in the daytime, and it would tremen-
dously cut down expense.
The CHAIRMAN. Where do you get the figures that it is 25 miles
out there before you get that depth?
Mr. GREEN. I know from experience what it is, because I live right
there.
Mr. HALL. Can you tell me how a barge going 3 miles an hour can
go 100 miles in a day?







60 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

Mr. RANKIN. She could tie up at night in port.
Mr. HALL. Where would they go in that area?
Mr. RANKIN. They would have to tie up at night.
Mr. GREEN. A lot of American people are being murdered every day
right off the coast of Florida, because we have no barge canal across
north Florida.
Florida people are appealing to me to get this barge canal across
Florida so this submarine menace may be relieved.
Mr. RANKIN. What the gentleman from New York and I are dis-
cussing is the feasibility of this route.
Mr. HALL. Yes; that is right.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you want to make it a barge canal for the time
being, across from Jacksonville to Port Inglis that will meet the
situation as far as the canal is concerned?
They have testified they could build a pipe line up here very easily,
and it would only take a few months to do so, and these barges would
be protected at least in the daytime, and as far as submarines trying
to slip up there at night is concerned, I seriously doubt that, but as far
as that is concerned you would save millions of dollars and you could
construct that barge line across Florida in 15 months. It is not
beyond the realm of possibility that this war is going to last 3 years.
Mr. GREEN. I just noticed the dredge New Jersey has about com-
pleted its task on the Great Lakes, and it would only take a small
amount of dismantling, I understand, to put it on this job.
Mr. RANKIN. I just wanted to call yQur attention to that, Mr. Hall.
Mr. HALL. But, but can you corroborate that by expert testimony?
Mr. RANKIN. My own should be sufficient, but I will ask our engi-
neers to look into that and give us the depth of this water in here
[indicating].
Mr. CULKIN. And the depth that a submarine goes down when it
is submerged, and that sort of thing.
The CHAIRMAN. And also a scale map to see if it is only 100 miles.
Mr. HALL. And, Mr. Rankin, I would also like to have the Army, if
they can do it, give us the, depth of water that a submarine can
operate in, because we have heard that they can operate a mile and
a half off the coast.
Mr. RANKIN. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. In the recommendations of the ship channel they
went out to something like a 30-foot contour there in the Gulf with
jetties, and one of those jetties was 17 miles long, and one was 4%
miles long. That does not indicate that it is 25 miles out before you
get to a depth of 25 feet.
Mr. RANKIN. What was that statement, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. I am talking about the report of the Chief of
Engineers when the Florida ship canal was reported, going out from
this same point on the Gulf you speak of.
Mr. RANKIN. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. It provides for jetties extending out into the Gulf
to something like a 30-foot contour in the Gulf.
Mr. RANKIN. Extending how far from the shore, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. One was 41/2 miles long, and the other was 17
miles long.
Mr. RANKIN. At the mouth of the Withlacoochee River?






INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 61

The CHAIRMAN. That is where the entrance is; that is where the
submarines can come in.
Mr. GREEN. The main part of it is shallow; I have been going over
it for years.
Mr. MILLER. I would like to make this observation: We are advo-
cating, of course, the adoption of this program as set forth in the
bill. We take it for granted that if the bill is passed and the proj-
ect authorized, then the question as to what particular part of the
work should go ahead of another part would, of course, be decided
by those in authority. It does occur to me, however,, that if you
are going to have a completely protected inland waterway all the way
from Maine to Mexico that the part from St. Joe down to the en-
trance of the canal across Florida ought to be built. As to whether
it should be constructed before the barge canal is built is a matter
which the Chief of Engineers would have to decide. It seems to me
that the discussion, while very interesting, is not important so far as
this bill is concerned. Experience might show that both should be
done at the same time. Certainly the barge canal across Florida
should be completed with the greatest possible speed. But, these are
matters to be determined by those in authority if and when the
building is authorized.
I want to present a gentleman who is probably as familiar with the
oil industry in all of its phases as anyone in America. He has made
an intensive study of this project in its relationship to the oil situation
in the Southwest and in its relationship to the oil situation on the
Atlantic seaboard. I present Mr. Harry Pennington, a noted engineer
and oil man from San Antonio, Tex.
Mr. DONDERO. Before the gentleman offers his testimony, I want to
submit this for the committee's information: I took it upon myself to
call the Attorney General of the United States to inquire from him
what his opinion was as to the authority vested in the President under
Public Law 197 of the Seventh-seventh Congress, first session, which
is the act to facilitate the construction and extension of interstate
petroleum pipe lines related to national defense. I talked to Attorney
Townsend, Assistant Attorney General, who stated that, in his opinion,
the President now has authority to construct such pipe lines.
Mr. HALL. What was the date of it ?
Mr. DONDERO. July 30, 1941, and it runs until June 30, 1943.
Mr. CULKIN. Is not that to be subject to the priorities laid down by
the W. P. B.?
Mr. HALL. So would the authority in this bill if it were passed.

STATEMENT OF HARRY PENNINGTON, ENGINEER,
SAN ANTONIO, TEX.

The CHAIRMAN. First give us your history, Mr. Pennington.
Mr. PENNINGTON. I am a native Texan.
The CHAIRMAN. That is to your credit.
Mr. PENNINGTON. My family has lived there since 1824.
I went to the oil fields as a boy, and then I left the oil fields to go to
college to learn something about them. I came back and became chief
engineer for the Texas Co. in production, and subsequently went into







62 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

production for myself, maintaining and owning pipe lines and refin-
eries and tank cars for distribution.
Then I served as consulting engineer for the Freeport Sulphur Co.
in mining sulphur, which is important to the war effort, too.
Now, I remember some very sad experiences during the World War
in transportation. I do not say this with any idea of detracting at all
from the performances of anyone.
First, before going into this oil movement, I should like to impress
upon you the quantities of oil that we used before this war started,
and the quantities of oil that we have available right now to use, and
the quantities that are absoltuely needed. The shortage of gasoline
for motorcars is not so important as the fuel oil which is essential for
manufacturing steel and fabricating it into armament and the heat
treating of it for this war. That is the most important thing we have
to do-to keep these steel mills making steel in the open-hearth fur-
naces and the mills heat-treating it with oil. It has never been done
with anything but oil because our modern heat treatment came into
being about the same time as the use of oil for fuel.
In normal times Texas produces 1,600,000 barrels of oil a day. Of
that amount 1,400,000 barrels move by tank ship in the Gulf-Atlantic
route, 1,400,000 barrels of oil a day. In this war we will require more
oil than the first World War did, which is, of course, more oil than was
normally shipped-1,400,000 barrels a day.
There has never been very much pipe-line capacity across our Alle-
gheny Mountains. The original movement of oil from Pennsylvania,
when the oil business first started, were some very small lines which
flanked the mountains and came to the east coast. They were made of
wrought iron, and they were low-pressure lines, and some of them are
still in service.
About 10 years ago there were steps taken to pipe natural gas through
from Texas to New York. About three of those old lines were taken
over for gas. They were unused oil lines which further reduced the
capacity of movement of oil across the Alleghenies.
So there is a bottleneck which in wartimes presents obstacles which
heretofore in peacetimes has also prevented the construction of pipe
lines for that movement. The movement by rail up to 600,000 barrels
a day is a movement for which the railroads are to be certainly com-
plimented.
I want to tell you about an experience of my own in the World War.
We had assurances then that the railroads could handle the traffic.
Take our outfit; when the World War closed it had 650 tank cars,
whereas before the World War started it had 150 tank cars. As the
World War progressed, and as we got into it, we had to buy more tank
cars, until we had 650 tank cars for this same movement of oil from
the States of Texas, Oklahoma, and the upper Mississippi Valley,
When the war closed, 150 tank cars moved the same oil that 650 tank
cars were required to move during the World War, and we had 500
tank cars cluttering up the sidetracks somewhere; and, gentlemen, this
war is more of a transportation war than the first war was. That cost
my outfit $1,500,000, most of which was my own. If there is going
to be any better movement of oil in this war, we must have these added
facilities. Transportation is the bottleneck. Recently I saw five trains
waiting to get through a block. Already we can see a slowing down







INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 63

of traffic. There will be the peak of traffic next fall or next winter,
five times the present amount, with all of these great factories coming
into production, and they require material for manufacturing steel
and heat treating it with oil and fabricating it into armament.
On the question of the fuel-oil requirements the necessity is going
up so fast that you cannot get any more estimates on that out of the
Bureau of Mines. That is the critical demand for war, the oil required
for manufacturing purposes, and next comes, of course, the heating
of homes in New England and the East. They say that if we do
not get some assurances of oil up here we cannot heat our homes, and
we cannot work. In Vermont they 'telegraph us that they will be
chopping wood next winter for fuel and, of course, the general short-
age of gasoline reduces our war effort commensurate with that
shortage.
That covers the movement of oil up to the northeast by rail and
by pipe line. There never was much pipe-line capacity, and if the
railroads can sustain the present traffic it would -,! 1 1-.- me from the
experiences I have had in the World War, and even if this movement
is sustained by every means possible, and there is a 400,000-barrel
tank ship movement we are still short 600,000 barrels in this district.
All the means we can get must deliver oil.
Mr. JoHNs. You say they are piping gas from Texas to New York?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. JOHNS. It is possible to use those pipe lines for oil purposes?
Mr. PENNINGTON. The effect in heat units would be approximately
the same as in fuel oil, but you could do it; yes.
The CHAIRMAN. You use smaller pipes for gas ordinarily than for
crude oil; do you not?
Mr. PENNIX GTON. Oh, they are very much larger.
The CHAIRMAN. They are larger?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Yes, sir. The gas lines run up to 24 inches, and
we have never had an oil line that big. The gas lines are always very
much larger lines.
The CHAIRMAN. Those gas lines use the larger pipe?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Yes, sir; and they have approximately the same
pressure.
Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Pennington, are there not any gas pipe lines
leading from the Pittsburgh area up into the northeast section of
our country?
Mr. PENNINGTON. There is the Columbia Gas & Electric, and the
Standard.
Mr. DONDERO. How many of them are there ?
Mr. PENNINGTON. I think there are four of them.
Mr. DONDERO. There are four lines leading out of the Pittsburgh
area?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Yes.
Mr. DONDERO. Could they not get that oil up to the Pittsburgh
area and then pump it through those lines to the northeast section
on the Atlantic seaboard?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Considering the oil lines alone the total move-
ment of oil by pipe line from the Pennsylvania area to the seaboard
is 175,000 barrels.
72774-42--5







64 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

Mr. DONDERO. How large are those lines ?
Mr. PENNINGTON. They are small lines.
Mr. DONDERO. That would only be 175,000 barrels a day?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Yes; with those lines we have.
Mr. DONDERO. I just wanted to know if there were any lines there,
and what their capacity was to see whether or not the seaboard
could be supplied from that direction.
Mr. PENNINGTON. As a matter of fact, the Sun Co. built a gasoline
line from the Marcus Hook refinery to Cincinnati. They used to
transport the oil by tank ship to Marcus Hook and refine the gas-
oline there. They now bring it up the Mississippi to the terminal
there and pump it the other way. We have more lines operating
now then ever before, and still we are short 600,000 barrels on the
eastern coast, and every means posisble is being used to transport
the oil. Here is a map which was made here several years ago.
Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Pennington, do they transport gasoline any great
distances through these pipe lines?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Oh, yes. There is a line from Baton Rouge to
Greensboro, N. C., and from St. Joe, Fla., northward, and there is
the Sun Co. line.
Mr. DONDERO. That is for gasoline ?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Yes. With a normal movement of oil of 1,400,-
000 barrels a day, and taking the tank ships away all of a sudden,
it does not leave us with our pants down, but it leave us without
any pants at all.
On the movement of tank ships, the average time of loading a tank
ship is 16 hours. Now, we have to wait 51/2 days. In other words,
we have a 51/-day turn-around at each end. That has slowed down
the tank ship movement by reason of the wartime requirement to
gather a convoy, so that you are short of transportation in every
direction with a trebling of needs on the east coast.
Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Pennington, this map shows that there are
seven pipe lines running toward the northeast section of our country.
Mr. PENNINGTON. You will notice there is a bottleneck, and we
also closed a little while ago here three of the pipe lines there; three
of them were taken over for gas.
Mr. DONDERO. Do you know what the total capacity of the seven
lines may be ?
Mr. PENNINGTON. It is less than 175,000 barrels.
Mr. DONDFRO. It is not sufficient to supply the needs?
Mr. PENNINGTON. No; it is about 12 percent of our needs.
I really want to fill in some testimony that has already been given
on several matters. I have covered the pipe line and barge routes up
the Mississippi Valley and the bottleneck of getting across the Alle-
ghanies; and I have covered also the movement of tank ships.
Now, I should like to go into this canal. I have sailed this canal,
both of them, many times.
Mr. CULKIN. What canal is that?
Mr. PENNINGTON. The Gulf Intracoastal Canal and the Atlantic
Intracoastal Canal from Corpus Christi to Long Island Sound.
Mr. CULKIN. Yes.
Mr. PENNINGTON. And further, I have sailed them many times, and
I have some pictures which will give you some idea of the movement
of oil on the Gulf Intracoastal Canal.






INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 65

The CHAIRMAN. Is not Mr. Hall first ? Then we can come right on
around with the questioning.
Mr. HALL. I have no questions at this time.
Mr. PENNINGTON. First, in building a pipe line across Florida-I
do not like to say a pipe line because we have this condition: On the
east coast the refining capacity is 714,000 barrels a day. Bear that in
mind. Those are refineries that handle 714,000 barrels of crude oil per
day and convert it into usable products on the east coast, including
from Charleston to the north and south. On the Texas coast our re-
fineries can handle a total of 1,200.000 barrels per day. That total is
1,914,000 for the two coasts. The inland of Texas is 300,000 more bar-
rels, and in Louisiana 180,000 barrels.
Mr. CULKIN. Could not that go up in its present state up to the
refineries in the northeast?
Mr. PENNINGTON. That is the point I -wanted to bring out.
If we ship more crude oil than can be converted when we get to the
capacity of the east coast refineries it would not do any good to ship
any more crude oil. Do you see?
Mr. DONDERO. Could we transport the oil through these pipe lines
with profit ?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Yes, sir. And that is a point I want to bring out.
Six hundred thousand barrels per day are needed of our product.
That would have to be refined somewhere else than on the east coast
when finally, loaded.
There are three classes which have to be transported. For instance,
we have clean and dirty tank cars. We have the clean tank cars for
all kinds of gasoline and kerosene. Then we have other cars for Diesel
fuel oil for-we should call them-compression ignition engines.
That is a clear oil, 32-36 gravity. It is distilled. Below that it be-
comes fuel oil, which is a dirty product, so-called, and crude oil. You
cannot mix those products. You cannot transport gasoline through
fuel oil because it will gum the engines up. So, you see, you have
to put the fuels in separate pipe lines, because of the three products,
aviation fuel, motor fuel, Deisel engine fuel, and furnace oil fuel, fuel
which is crude.
Mr. CULKIx. Do you mean to say you have to have four distinct
pipe lines ?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Three.
Mr. CULKIN. Three.
Mr. PENNINGTON. Because of the refining capacity.
If inside on the east coast you send all the crude through but one
24-inch line, as you heard General Reybold say, and we will corre-
spondingly transport 250,000 barrels a day, we still need 600,000
barrels a day. That would be merely to keep the railroads up to
capacity. That one pipe line will not do it, and neither will a 24-inch
pipe line from Texas to New York.
The CHAIRMAN. And the 24-inch line would only occupy one type?
Mr. PENNINGTON. That is right, one type.
Mr. DONDERO. Are those types evenly divided in consumption or
are they just that which is needed?
Mr. PENNINGTON. No; they are not equally divided in quantity.
Gasoline will run a great deal more than in fuel oil. In approximate
pipe-line capacity they would pretty well balance.







66 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

The CHAIRMAN. That is on account of having less friction in the
pipe?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Yes.
As to this movement I have been analyzing this traffic situation ever
since December and bringing it down to date every week. It pointed
to the only way which we are going to keep the steel mills and arms
manufacturers making tanks and cannons going is with a bulk move-
ment of oil comparable to the movement had before the war. That
means 1,400,000 barrels a day.
We do not favor any method over another. We are going to need
them all. We need them now because they have rationing on the east
coast. And if we will ask the manufacturers on the east coast whether
they need this oil they will tell out a lot about this.
Mr. HALL. I know about that.
Mr. PENNINGTON. There is only one other point I would like to
bring out, and that is this: As you heard Colonel Thompson explain
we do not waste gas any more in producing oil. Formerly we opened
wells indiscriminately and we wasted gas. We need the energy of the
gas in the original reservoir to push the oil in the well to the top of the
ground. I formulated that theory in 1912, and it took a great many
years to have it realized that we were recovering prior to 1932, we will
say, approximately one barrel of oil to each five or six we left in the
ground. By use of this method of asserting directed control over the
-amount of gas produced with each barrel and not wasting any oil we
are now producing five or six barrels for each one kept in the ground.
Mr. CULKIN. You mean by keeping the gas in the ground?
Mr. PENNINGTON. By not using any more than is necessary.
You see on the first well in 1912 we calculated we were getting 1
percent mechanical efficiency of that which we found in the sand
originally.
You take in the Pennsylvania fields the way they operate is to open
the wells wide open and blow it out. There are four barrels in those
wells for each one taken out.
In Texas we have this law prohibiting underground waste. In
order to comply with that we have to limit production. That was the
main reason it became a statute, although when it was devised as a
theory I did not dream it would ever become a penal statute. But it
is for a fact.
We have to limit production to realize the best recoveries from our
sand. If the demand for oil increases so much and we have to open
our wells too wide we will begin wasting gas.
Mr. PITTENGER. You would favor an 8-inch pipe line without so
much hot air connected with it ?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Any way to get the oil up here. But that won't
carry it.
Mr. CJLKIN. What is your concrete recommendation? How are
you suggesting to work this out?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Would you let me explain the danger in this
first?
Mr. CULKIN. I am at your mercy. You are not at mine.
Mr. PENNINGTON. I was going to say if we furnish all we can and
we have a shortage of oil and have to open up these reservoirs 20,250,-
000,000 barrels will disappear as unrecoverable oil. If we open our






INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 67

wells up too much this oil will disappear as unrecoverable oil as we
were before creating waste. That is the danger in this present
situation.
Now, in removing oil, answering that question, it is very simple
in moving oil over these waters-
Mr. CULKIN (interposing). Except for submarines it would be all
right.
Mr. PENNINGTON. Not in the inland waters.
Mr. CULKIN. I do not mean in the inland waters.
Mr. PENNINGTON. Of course, you won't have that situation in the
inland waters. Mr. Hitler is the one we will have to watch in the
outside waters.
There is a limit of tow of 750 feet on the Gulf Intercoastal Canal
and on the Atlantic Intracoastal Canal a limit of width of 45 feet.
But barges are being moved now 300 feet long and 45 feet wide, two
of them in one tow.
Observing those locks and the time for locking a tow through you
can see that a. canal with 9 feet of water and a 12-foot canal on the
east coast will now handle 500,000 barrels a day with ease.
Mr. CULKIN. That is by reason of intervening locks they are slow-
ing it down?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Any canal is a check.
Mr. CULKIN. That is what I understood you to say.
Mr. PENNINGTON. In sailing the Rhine in Europe the locks are
always limited. They have a tug to jam them in, push them in so
they can hardly close the gates they are so crowded. Always the limit
of a canal is locking capacity.
These locks are already built with 12 feet over the water sill.
Mr. CULKIN. Which one are you speaking of now, the Gulf Intra-
coastal?
Mr. PENNINGTON. All the locks.
Mr. CULKIN. I know; but I understood you to say there was only
one.
Mr. PENNINGTON. There is just one.
Mr. CULKIN. That should not be very heavily trafficked. How
many are there on the Atlantic Coast Waterway ?
Mr. PENNINGToy. The South Mills locks down in the Dismal Swamp
and the Tidal locks at Great Bridge.
Mr. CuiKIN. Those are just to take care of the tide?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Yes.
Mr. CULKIN. They should not be formidable on this movement?
Mr. PENNINGTON. No. Then in addition to those two locks the
only lock we have is the Harvey locks.
Mr. CULKIN. Where is that ?
Mr. PENNINGTON. That is going to New Orleans from Corpus
Christi.
Mr. CULKIN. But it goes up the Mississippi River ?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Oh, no.
Mr. GREEN. No; it does not.
Mr. CULKIN. Oh, I see.
Mr. PENNINGTON. No. That is a lock up anywhere from 4 to 15
feet. Then you get into the Mississippi down below New Orleans to
the Industrial Canal locks. Then it goes through Lake Borgne, Lake
Pontchartrain, and to the dead end of St. Marks.






68 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

Mr. CULKIN. Do you consider those locks will be a sufficient bottle-
neck to make these canals insufficient ?
Mr. PENNINGTON. No. They will handle 900,000 barrels a day.
Mr. CUrLIN. I cannot understand why there is not a heavier move-
ment up the Mississippi. I was here when some of those projects
went through and heard it was very important.
Mr. PENNINGTON. Now, in going up the Mississippi River you get
into a bottleneck up at Pittsburgh, as you cannot get over the Alle-
gheny Mountains.
Mr. CULKIN. You could build a pipe line from Pittsburgh to the
Atlantic coast.
Mr. PENNINGTON. To the Atlantic coast. Did you ever build a pipe
line over a mountain? You have to pull the traffic up over the
mountain.
Mr. CuLmiN. Can it be done? Is it feasible?
Mr. PENNINGTON. It is entirely feasible. It is not at all practical.
The CHAIRMAN. It would take a number of pumps to get over the
mountain ?
Mr. PENNINGTON. An enormous number.
Mr. CULKIN. In any event it has never been done ?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Only once.
Mr. CULKIN. Is that successful?
Mr. PENNINGTON. It won't carry much oil now.
Mr. CULKTN. Who built that?
Mr. PENNINGTON. That was the original Eureka line. I think that
is the name of it.
Mr. CULKIN. That was a private company?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Oh, yes. It is a common carrier now.
Mr. CULKIN. I do not get your whole solution to this proposition.
I hate to interrupt you.
Mr. PENNINGTON. Of course, you understand we want to ship this oil
up here.
The full solution is to complete this waterway so that we can load a
barge of gasoline, fuel oil, or oil in Texas or Louisiana and pull it
around here whether it is going to our Army or in a navy yard ship
or for general distribution.
Mr. HALL. At that point, where would you unload the barge?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Anywhere.
You see we already move the oil now by barge to most of these
factories. For the Navy it would be at Norfolk.
Mr. CULKIN. Do you favor a pipe line or canal?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Both; because it will take approximately 15
months to build a canal across Florida, and we can be shipping oil in
4 months across Florida by pipe line.
On the question of rates that oil can be moved-I think the gentle-
men here already testified oil was so moved-for 80 cents a barrel from
Texas through the canal up here.
The present tanker rate before 1934, that is the tank-ship rate for
moving oil from the Texas coast in the Gulf-Atlantic to be run up the
east coast was 14 cents a barrel and from San Pedro Harbor 26 cents
a barrel. Due to slower movement, higher risk, and insurance and
other charges, the tankship rate is now 48 cents as the basic rate, the
surcharge is 46 cents, which makes 94 cents.






INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 69

Mr. CULKIN. In the testimony, as I understood at least, before the
Economic Committee I think it was testified that one company moved
gasoline products up the coast-I think it was supposed to be the Sun
Oil Co.-for five-eighths of a mill per ton-mile. Does that correspond
to your figures?
Mr. PENNINGTON. That is even less.
Mr. CULKIN. Less?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. CULKIN. That is the lowest cost transportation in the history
of the world, as I understand ?
Mr. PENNINGTON. There is no question about that; absolutely none.
The basic tanker rate now is 48 cents, other charges 58, and the sur-
charge 48. That is $1.52 a barrel. This method will pay for the
whole project, in addition to speeding our efforts for war. As an
economic proposition it is extremely good and as a war proposition it
is the only way we are going to really fight this war.
Mr. PITTENGER. As a matter of fact, we would be in much better
shape to fight this war if some of our big leaguers had had enough
foresight to develop all of our water facilities in this country some
time ago. Is not that a fact?
Mr. PENNINGTON. I did not intend to refer to that. But I will tell
you-
Mr. PITTENGER. You have had a lot to do with these rates ?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. PITTENGER. What is true of Texas rates is true of rates on the
Lakes also?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Yes.
Mr. PITTENGER. I just wanted you to make an honest admission.
Mr. PENNINGTON. Every competitive railroad will fight competitive
water rates. We are out on a limb.
Mr. PITTENGER. There is no domestic economy there?
Mr. PENNINGTON. That is right.
Mr. PITTENGER. As the witnesses have testified here this afternoon
and today, they need 500,000 more barrels a day on the Atlantic sea-
board. I read somewhere in a newspaper the other day it was costing
the Atlantic seaboard $115,000,000 a day for this shortage. It does not
take much imagination to decide that some of us won't have oil at all
this winter.
Mr. PENNINGTON. I do not worry about that so much as I do about
armament.
Mr. PITTENGER. It is going to be a serious thing.
Mr. PENNINGTON. Yes.
Mr. CULKIN. May I ask the gentleman this: Every intelligent civili-
zation, if there are any left, has always moved the bulky traffic by
water ?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. CULKIN. And the chief opponent to the progress of that type
of transportation has been the $10,000,000 railroad lobby, called the
Association of American Railroads ? You probably know about them ?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Do I know about them? Let me tell you some-
thing about moving bulk commodities.
Mr. Hitler is in very fine position in Europe. All the railroads
could not handle the freight at any amount of rate. In the low






70 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

countries such as France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, and all around
those he is using the waterways, of course, tremendously for this war
effort.
The one vital thing we must have to manufacture armament will
be supplied only by this waterway.
A pipe line won't complete the great demand.
Mr. CULKIN. No?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Not for the supply up here.
Mr. CULKIN. If we lose this war, which pray God we will not-it
will be due to shortage of transportation ?
Mr. PENNINGTON. There is no question about it; absolutely.
Mr. CULKIN. And the fellows like the Association of American
Railroads, who have stopped water transportation, will be to blame,
and the blood will be on their hands ?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Yes, sir; but if we stop to quarrel with the past
we won't have any future. We have got to go from here on. There
is no question but what they have done it. They have stifled it at
any place, at any chance, or upon any little hold they had.
Now, we have a great many other transportation products than oil.
You have heard much of sulfur. We have 5,000,000 bales of cotton
in Texas to move. You need that here. Do not forget that we use
sulfuric acid to pickle steel and make powder. The sulfur comes
from Texas. In normal times the movement of general cargo of
manufacturers was southward. I know in working over freight rates
and in looking for bottoms to bring freight from Texas up here you
just had all the bottoms you wanted. But southward the general
cargo that is moved is not oil which is shipped to the Gulf Coast.
They come back empty. The general movement north is oil. But in
the case of barges oil moves northward and the cargo southward at
rates not disturbed by risk or storm or anything at all they can
continue to move.
There is not any question but that this canal will be forced down
the throat of railroads before we win this war. There is no question
about that. There is absolutely no question about it, gentlemen.
Now, as a post-war measure it has always been the policy of our
country to build waterways. General Washington himself initiated
it. It has always been the policy of our country to do that.
We say this is a war measure. I think we have proven it. I think
we have shown it, and if any more evidence is required to show that
we have to get this fuel up here call some of the manufacturers in New
England and Boston and Hartford, where they make armaments and
war equipment.
Mr. CULKIN. How would the gentleman get the attention of the
public to this problem as to this transportation question ? The news-
papers do not say anything about it.
Mr. PENNINGTON. With $3,000,000 to spend in Washington by the
American Association of Railroads and $12,000,000 in advertising and
$14,000,000 worth of lawyers over the country, I do not see a great deal
of chance.
Mr. CULKIN. Will the reporter read that again ?
(The foregoing statement was thereupon read by the reporter.)
Mr. CULKIN. How much in lawyers?
Mr. PENNINGTON. $14,000,000 worth.







INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 71

Mr. CULKIN. It is more than that. What is the total of those dis-
bursements?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Nearly $30,000,000 a year.
Mr. CULKIN. That is used in pulling the wool over the public's eyes.
Mr. PENNINGTON. Is there any reason why the commission in a Texas
town way out beyond the Cinch River should hold a hearing and con-
demn the canal, which does not have anything to do with it?
Mr. CULKIN. Do you think the public will get wise to this iniquitous
performance after awhile ?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Let me tell you something. In 1933, when we had
this great oil surplus in east Texas, I came up on the bills designed to
control it. Texas controls it right now. I got on the train in Wash-
ington and started back to Texas. I bought a newspaper in the first
town. They had in that newspaper all about hot-oil towns in Texas.
All the way back I bought papers at different towns about the little
fellows running hot oil.
Mr. CULKIN. Yes.
Mr. PENNINGTON. That is the perfect relations with the public.
Mr. CULKIN. The press control of the virgin daughter of liberty?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Yes.
Mr. CULKINI. Sometimes it amounts to seduction of the virgin daugh-
ter of liberty ?
Mr. PENNINGTON. NOW, there was not one word said in that about
who was buying the oil that the little fellow was running.
Gentlemen, in concluding this, being familiar with these canals,
about the question of moving !,nn l, you have the information in the
Coast and Geodetic Survey charts. Those are navigation charts.
They are very correct. And the captain furnished his file of them.
You can form your opinion as to the waters here. It is shallow here,
but up here it gets rather rapid coming off the shore. But in here
the water is shallow coming off here.
I sailed there in a fog with a radio beacon, and I know the water
is shallow because I have run aground several times.
Mr. CULKIN. Do you not get a good deal of westerly wind there
at times ?
Mr. PENNINGTON. Yes; a wind and sea current both:
Mr. CULKIN. From the Texas coast or from the south or south-
west?
Mr. PENNINGTON. No. They change. In coming in here the cur-
rent sweeps in here westward, you see.
Mr. CULKIN. What are the prevailing winds there in that neck of
water there? Do they come up from the southwest or west?
Mr. PENNINGTON. The winds?
Mr. CULKIN. Do the winds come up in that neck of the water from
the southwest or west ?
Mr. PENNINGTON. No. Those are the trade winds. They are con-
stant. Of course, they change occasionally.
Mr. CULKIN. Those do not blow much harder than 10 miles an
hour?
Mr PENNINGTON. NO.
Mr. CULKIN. So the most of the time they would be negligible so
far as Mr. Rankin's wind theory is concerned?







72 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

Mr. PENNINGTON. Depending on the equipment. If you have low
freeboard barges you could not.
Mr. CULKIN. That is what I mean. Could those low freeboard
barges go across there
Mr. PENNINGTON. No. I think you would have to have higher
freeboard than they furnish for intracoastal work.
You see if you noticed on those pictures some of the barges were
almost just about 1 foot of freeboard. They would not do in the
Gulf almost anywhere. But those barges could be built for that
particular service. There is oil being towed across there now.
Mr. CULKIN. I hope you will go back home and join Mr. Folk's
association.
Mr. PENNINGTON. I belong to it.
By the way, I wish to add that I am appearing here representing
the San Antonio Emergency Oil Transportation Committee and also
in behalf of the Intracoastal Canal Association.
I want to also say before this committee that we are in very
friendly hands, I think.
The CHAIRMAN. We thank you.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong the argu-
ment with reference to the railroads, but I would call the committee's
attention to the fact, which they can verify by reference to the hear-
ings held before it last year, that I do not recall a single case where
a meritorious water project was being considered by this committee
that it was not vigorously opposed by the railroads. Representa-
tives of the railroads time and again stated their position before this
committee, which was substantially this: That there was a surplus
of transportation in America; second, that the railroads were fully
equipped and prepared to furnish all of the necessary transportation;
and, third, that the American public should be required to use the
services of the railroads without reference to cost.
I think members of the committee will agree that that is a fair
statement of their position.
Mr. PITrENGER. And, fourth, that these waterway projects would
cost the taxpayers money which would be a waste of money.
Mr. MILLER. Of course. And now what is the situation? The
railroads while doing a good job are utterly incapable of meeting
the situation. And the position taken by them before this committee
is largely responsible for the serious transportation problem which
exists in America today, and which is going to be infinitely worse
as the days and weeks go by.
Mr. CULKIN. And they have less importance now than they did
in 1918?
Mr GREEN. And in that connection I remember a pamphlet
which was passed out by the American Association of Railroads that
even brought forth the totally erroneous statement to the effect that
Florida and all the States down there would be made a desert if a
canal was put across that State.
Mr. MILLER. Of course, as the members of this committee know
no representative of a waterway organization ever appeared before
you advocating a waterway as a substitute for any other kind of trans-
portation.






INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 73

We have advocated waterways only to perform services in respect
to the transportation of certain commodities which the railroads can-
not render.
Mr. CULKIN. In fact their past tactics-one of them was to oppose
building the Panama Canal vigorously, and then they advocated high
toll. Their past practice has put the country in jeopardy today.
Mr. MILLER. There is no question about that.
Mr. CULKIN. And evidently the people should be organized and
pressure brought to bear if we are going to continue a free people.
Mr. PENNINGTON. Mr. Chairman, would you let me add, right
there: Anyone who can oppose the movement of oil today does so
with very ill grace, particularly when we think of this: That this
waterway across Florida will eliminate the necessity for every con-
voy, every patrol, every blimp, every airplane that is now needed for
convoying oil northward and a cargo southward around the Florida
Keys. If human life means nothing, they can oppose this measure.
Mr. CULKIN. Then the American people ought to know this fact
pretty quickly.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, what we are trying to do in this bill
is to provide a facility to take a load off the railroads so they can
better serve the Nation by rendering the kind of service they are
designed to render.
Mr. Chairman, I suppose the chairman is tired?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. MILLER. We have many witnesses we want to present. We
are hopeful that tomorrow the first witness will be a well-informed
official from the Office of Petroleum Coordinator, who will give
the committee an over-all picture of the oil and gas situation through-
out the Nation.
The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, here is a telegram I would like to read
into the record. It is from R. C. Schlotterer, managing director,
Essential Oil Association of the United States of America:
NEW YORK, N. Y., May 18, 1942.
Congressman Jos. J. MANSFIELD:
In view of present gasoline rationing this association of-important essential
oil distributors believes that consideration should be given by your commit-
tee to making full use of existing Florida barge canal so.as to assure complete
inland waterway transportation for necessary gasoline.
At this time we will take an adjournment until tomorrow morning
at 10: 30.
(Whereupon, at 5:05 the committee was adjourned.)















EXTENSION OF THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY SYSTEM


TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1942
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS,
Washington, D. C.
The committee met at 10: 30 a. m., Hon. Joseph J. Mansfield (chair-
man) presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Miller, are you ready to proceed ?
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it would be out of order for
me to merely call the attention of the members of the committee to a
report contained in the Washington papers this morning concerning
the address delivered last night by Lieutenant General Somervell, com-
mander of the Army Service and Supply. I would like to read two
paragraphs from his address, which was delivered at the sixteen en-
gineering societies' banquet at the Mayflower Hotel last night:
I especially commend to the attention of those of you in transportation the
unhappy fact that transport, afloat and ashore, is our greatest bottleneck.
Our tank factories and our plane factories are turning out machines in numbers
that would astound and dismay the dictators. Our task is to get them where
they are needed by the shortest route in the shortest possible time.
If one of you transportation engineers can figure out some way of increasing
transportation efficiency, and put that scheme to work, you would be as great a
national hero as the general who wins battles on the field.
I do not mean to suggest that you gentlemen who are considering
this bill might be entitled to that honor, but I submit for your consid-
eration that the measure being considered, as I am quite sure you are
convinced by the testimony presented yesterday, and will be further
convinced by the testimony that will be presented today, will aid
materially in the removal of one of the bottlenecks in our transporta-
tion situation.
I am sure that the members of this committee are gratified over the
fact that this very question of the inadequate transportation for oil
and gasoline was considered at a: White House conference yesterday,
participated in by Senator Barkley, the majority leader of the Senate;
by the Speaker, Mr. Rayburn; by the majority leader, Mr. McCormack;
and by the Vice President. I notice from the report in the Times-
Herald the following, which I would like to quote:
Speaker Rayburn, of Texas, also at the conference, said proposals were dis-
cussed to increase deliveries to the East by barges on inland waterways and on
the intracoastal canal. This would expand present barge lines on the Mississippi
and Ohio Rivers. The White House talk also revived an often-discredited project
for a barge canal across Florida to connect intracoastal waterways on the Gulf
of Mexico and on the Atlantic coast.
Mr. RANKIN. What was that last sentence?
Mr. MILLER. The statement was:
The White House talk also revived an often-discredited project for a barge
canal across Florida to connect intracoastal waterways on the Gulf of Mexico
and on the Atlantic coast.
75







76 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

Mr. PITTENGER. I would like to comment on that statement. I am
sorry that they did not see fit to revive the omnibus rivers and harbors
bill, on which General Somervell appeared before the committee. In
view of the valiant fight that we put up last year for the omnibus river
and harbor bill, the list of projects in which, if completed, would do
more to relieve the transportation bottleneck than any other piece of
legislation that Congress could pass, it is to be regretted they did not
see fit to revive that.
Mr. GREEN. I think it appropriate to comment on the fact that
General Somervell appeared before the committee at length in support
of the project now before us. He appeared in support of the project
for a canal across the State of Florida and pointed out its then and now
necessity.
Mr. PIrTENGER. That was in 1939.
Mr. GREEN. He gave one of the ablest justifications for the project
that I have ever heard given for any project.
Gen. C. P. Summerall did the same thing in executive session. They
stressed the imperativeness of its passage then as a security and defense
measure.
Mr. MILLER. I simply wished to present that for the information
of the members of the committee.
Mr. SMITH. General Summerall, who appeared before the committee
in executive session, said that it would help to save this Nation in case
of war.
Mr. RANKIN. Along the line we were discussing yesterday after-
noon, I would like to ask Colonel Textor some questions.
Mr. DONDERO. Before any witnesses are called, I want to make the
comment that I was pleased to have Mr. Miller, of Texas, refer to the
publicity given by the newspapers to the conference at the White
House yesterday in regard to the transportation of oil and gasoline.
I notice, in the paragraph that Mr. Miller quoted, it was stated that
the President contemplated not one but two pipe lines. I was also
pleased to note that the pipe lines are predicated, not on the bill before
this committee but on the bill H. R. 1970, passed on June 30, 1941,
which already gives the President full and complete authority to build
pipe lines wherever he sees fit. That is the point I made yesterday,
that the President already has that authority and that, therefore, there
is no reason for this bill so far as pipe lines are concerned.
Mr. MILLER. May I conclude my statement? I do not agree with
the gentleman altogether. I think that authority exists for the pipe
lines, but I think it is self-evident that from a long-range view this
inland waterway, as a war measure, should be completed on the basis
of a 12-foot depth.
Mr. DONDERO. I made no claim that the act of June 30, 1941, in-
cluded waterways.
Mr. MILLER. No, sir. I think you are correct as to the pipe line, and
I am very hopeful that some action will be taken about the pipe line.
Now, I would like to make this further statement: General Somer-
vell, as the members of this committee know, is one of the most dis-
tinguished officers in the Corps of Engineers of the United States
Army. He was detailed several years ago to study the project of a
canal across Florida.
Mr. RANKIN. At this point I would like to question Colonel Textor.
The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear Colonel Textor at this time.






INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 77

STATEMENT OF COL. G. E. TEXTOR, CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
UNITED STATES ARMY

Mr. RANKIN. Colonel Textor, on yesterday we were discussing the
question of the submarine menace in connection with the open Gulf
route from Carrabelle to Port Inglis. As I understand it, the 'route
that the ships could take there has a 12-foot depth. Is that right?
Colonel TEXTOR. Yes, sir; that is right.
Mr. RANKIN. How. close could submarines come to land there and be
submerged?
Colonel TEXTOR. They could not come very close. Submarines, so
far as I can learn from people who know about them, require at
least 16 feet of water in which to navigate on the surface.
Mr. RANKIN. On the surface ?
Colonel TEXTOR. Yes, sir; that is when they are navigating on the
surface as surface craft. When they submerge so as to be invisible
from aircraft, they should have a minimum of 60 feet depth. I think
they like to go much deeper than that. The 60-foot contour line is
considerably off the coast of Florida.
Mr. RANKIN. How far is it?
Colonel TEXTOP. An average distance of about 30 miles.
Mr. RANKIN. So that a submarine, in order to be safe, or to be
submerged so it would be out of sight of vessels on the surface or
aircraft, would have to stay 30 miles off the coast ?
Colonel TEXTOR. That is essentially correct, for most of the coast
line.
Mr. RANKIN. How far could a submarine send a projectile that
would destroy one of these barges?
Colonel TEXTCR. I am not competent to answer that question, but I
would estimate such range to be not more than 3 miles.
Mr. RANKIN. I think somebody from the Navy Department said it
would be somewhere between 3 and 31/2 miles. Now, in order to be
safe, they would have to stay out at least 30 miles from land, because
if they were on top of the surface they could be seen from the coast.
Colonel TEXTOR. Yes; if they come too close to the shore.
Mr. RANKIN. In order to be safe and to keep out of sight of air-
planes patroling the area, how deep would the water have to be in
which the submarine was operating?
Colonel TEXTon. It would have to be a minimum of 60 feet.
Mr. RANKIN. It would have to operate in a minimum of 60 feet
of water in order not to be seen from the surface; but I mean where it
could descend or submerge to a point where airplanes could not
discover it.
Colonel TEXTOR. I am told that it, would require at least 100 feet to
make a submarine completely invisible to aircraft.
Mr. RANKIN. Somebody in the Navy Department told me that if
they did not have a depth of 120 feet in which to operate they could
not keep from being observed from the air.
Colonel TEXTOR. That would appear to be reasonable.
Mr. RANKIN. So far as submarines are concerned, would you con-
sider that this route would be fairly safe for barges?
Colonel TEXTOR. That would be my opinion, if the barges operate
generally along the 12-foot underwater contour.
Mr. RANKIN. That is, it would be safe from attack by submarines?






78 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

Colonel TEXTOR. Yes, sir; on the route that the barges would sensibly
follow on the 12-foot offshore route.
Mr. RANKIN. Now, the only danger there would be would be where
the submarine came to the surface at night and approached the vessel.
In that event, the minimum depth at which they could operate in that
way would be within how many miles of this route ?
Colonel TEXTOR. That would vary depending on the angle from
which they approached. When they are offshore where the under-
water shelf is fairly uniform, they could not get very close to it.
Mr. RANKIN. How near could they come?
Colonel TEXTOR. Within 4 or 5 miles.
Mr. RANKIN. They could not get within range ?
Colonel TEXTOR. I think not, except along the northern portion of
the route, where there are various small inlet channels having deeper
water.
Mr. RANKIN. Under those conditions, would you consider this route
comparatively safe from attack by submarines, and a route that would
be easy to protect ?
Colonel TEXTOR. If judiciously navigated; yes, sir.
Mr. DONDERO. I want to ask if Colonel Textor will be here to testify
later.
Colonel TEXTOR. Yes, sir.
Mr. DONDERO. You represent the Corps of Army Engineers?
Colonel TEXTOR. I represent General Reybold.
Mr. DONDERO. I will defer any questions to Colonel Textor until he
appears again.
Mr. MILLER. At this point-and I hope it will not provoke further
discussion-I would like to read into the record a statement made before
this committee on April 1937 by General Pillsbury, at that time Assist-
ant Chief of Ei .ir. r-. I read from the hearings on the bill, H. R.
6150, page 447, the following statement by General Pillsbury:
Now, of course, when it comes to transporting oil to the Navy, the savings
might be of importance, but the more important aspect, I would judge, was the
question of vulnerability to submarines, and there the danger lies on the Atlantic
coast, and probably not on the Gulf coast or in the Florida Straits.
Mr. DONDERO. When was that statement made ?
Mr. MILLER. In April of 1937.
Of course, there have been submarine attacks in all those waters.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we are fortunate this morning to have, at your
request and invitation, a gentleman who, I think, is as well qualified
as any official of the Government to give the committee an over-all
picture of the oil situation throughout the country. It is my pleasure
to present Mr. Robert E. Allen, who is an assistant to Mr. Davies, the
Deputy Petroleum Coordinator.
The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear Mr. Allen at this time.

STATEMENTS OF ROBERT E. ALLEN, AND EDWARD B. SWANSON,
OFFICE OF PETROLEUM COORDINATOR FOR NATIONAL DE-
FENSE
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, my name is Robert E. Allen, and I am
Assistant Deputy Petroleum Coordinator for War.
The situation which I wish to discuss with you this morning-and
for the opportunity of discussing it, I wish to thank you-is one which






INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 79

has so occupied the time of the Petroleum Coordinator's Office that I
have been unable to prepare a formal statement for presentation; and,
since I have no formal statement, I want to say that I have no objec-
tion at all to interruptions for questions as I proceed.
The Petroleum Coordinator's Office is charged with the responsibil-
ity of maintaining an adequate and continuous flow of petroleum and
petroleum products for use by the military forces and for supplying
the essential civilian needs at all times and in all cases at reasonable
prices.
Since Pearl Harbor and since the development of enemy action
along the east coast, that responsibility has developed into quite a
chore. As you probably realize, the United States as a whole is not
confronted with any petroleum shortage as such. The situation that
we have in the Atlantic Seaboard States, in which we find ourselves
progressively shorter and shorter of the petroleum products which
contribute to our wheel economy of today, is wholly and entirely the
result of transportation dislocations brought about by the war.
I would like to touch briefly upon the supply-and-demand conditions
which make the situation what it is today. Here on the Atlantic sea-
board we are in the habit of using an average of about 1,600,000 barrels
of petroleum and petroleum products daily. Contrary to the condition
existing in other sections of the country, our greatest use is during the
winter months, when so much fuel oil is necessary for commercial, in-
dustrial, and domestic purposes. A great deal has been necessary for
production operations in the industrial sections, and that use has
mounted considerably since the war began. During the summer
months our gasoline use has been larger, of course, but it has not been
sufficient to bring the total consumption to the required amount during
the winter.
This amount of 1,600,000 barrels as the average is a rather settled
figure, although it might be more now if it were not for the restric-
tions on transportation. However, the fact remains that the supply
is a great deal less. This 1,600,000 barrels used daily prior to the
war was brought to the east coast largely by tankers, or almost entirely
by tankers, I would say, because the small amount of oil coming in
by pipe line and tank cars was relatively insignificant in terms of the
total supply. Since Pearl Harbor, or since the advent of submarines
along the east coast and in the Gulf of Mexico, the amount has been
much less. The situation has changed, and the amount coming in by
tankers is relatively small, indeed. On the other hand, we have had
to develop overland transportation to a point undreamed of 6 months
or a year ago, and the oil companies and railroads collectively are
truly doing a superman job in bringing as much as 652,000 barrels
of oil per day to the eastern seaboard last week by operating tank cars,
and, in addition to that, the movement by pipe line has been stepped
up to the maximum degree possible. The movement of barges along
the inland waterways has also been zt.-ppi-. up. The movement by
barges along the Gulf of Mexico coast and by tankers still continues
to some degree. That movement in connection with the pipe lines to
the Southeast has been improved materially. However, much remains
to be done. There is a rather hard-boiled assumption made of our
minimum requirements here on the Atlantic seaboard, and when I
say "minimum" I mean the amount of oil necessary to keep our indus-
72774-42-6






80 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

tries going, our power plants in operation, and to keep the homes of
our workers warm and comfortable, with the workers in good health,
so they can continue their work. That minimum amount is 1,200,000
barrels daily, or 400,000 barrels per day less than what we have been
accustomed to use.
The CHAIRMAN. What is that minimum?
Mr. ALLEN. 1,200,000 barrels daily is what we consider to be the
hard-boiled minimum of consumption on the Atlantic seaboard, and
that is 400,000 barrels a day less than the average amount that we have
been using normally. Even that amount, however, is not being
brought in at present, and only the most strenuous efforts will enable
it to Le brought in in time to keep us warm next winter. Ordinarily,
we must accumulate a vast amount of fuel oil, for both domestic and
industrial use, in storage in the summer, because our tanker transporta-
tion, great though it was, has been ordinarily insufficient to bring in
the amount required for winter use as rapidly as needed, and, there-
fore, they have put a lot in stocks of fuel oil during the summer months.
Unless we do that this summer, we will face a very serious situation
next winter.
The CHAIRMAN. Do we now have the necessary facilities for storing
fuel oil to that extent?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. You would not have to add to those facilities?
Mr. ALLEN. No, sir; the same storage facilities that were available
last winter are available today, but they are sadly depleted as to
contents.
Mr. CULKIN. Is there any collaboration between the gasoline com-
panies and the oil companies in the matter of the use of these storage
facilities?
Mr. ALLEN. By and large those storage tanks are.sufficient to ac-
commodate the amounts for the companies using them. At present,
however, due to the fact that there has been a disparity in deliveries
to distributors on the Atlantic coast, our office has found it necessary
to urge the necessity for the movement of oil from the storage tanks
of one company to the customers of another company.
Mr. CULKIN. Are you meeting with success in that?
Mr. ALLEN. So far as the limited quantity on hand will permit, we
have been quite successful.
The CHAIRMAN. Who are the owners of those storage facilities? Do
they belong to the tank companies, the refineries, or to the Govern-
ment?
Mr. ALLEN. The owners of the commercial storage tanks throughout
the country, as a matter of fact, are the oil companies and the distrib-
utors of petroleum products.
Mr. DONDERO. What would you say should be done to solve the
problem ?
Mr. ALLEN. Everything.
Mr. DONDERO. I am seeking advice, in order that the committee may
cooperate to the fullest extent in affording relief. I think you might
give some answer to that, as to what you think is the best possible
solution of the problem, as well as the quickest solution.
Mr. AILEN. I might speed up my remarks and touch upon that im-
mediately, although I intended to reach it later in my statement.







INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 81

Mr. CULKIN. Is there any possibility of regaining control of our
coastal waters?
Mr. ALLEN. That is a question that should be referred to the Navy
Department.
Mr. RANKIN. I want to hear your answer to the question of the gen-
tleman from Michigan.
Mr. ALLEN. We have four forms of transportation which are at
present in use and will be going into greater use if we are to have the
necessary supply of oil. I want to enumerate them: The most im-
portant at present is the railroad tank cars which are being used at
an out-of-pocket loss, and a very considerable loss, on every barrel of
oil transported by the oil companies. Another would be the barges
on the inland and intracoastal waterways. They are being pushed
along as rapidly as possible. Then, there are tank trucks which are
used, but their use is limited at present by the short-haul requirements
of the Office of Defense Transportation. The use of tank trucks has
been greatly limited, also, by the inability to get an adequate supply
of rubber tires.
The CHAIRMAN. They will not be practicable for long-distance hauls.
Mr. ALLEN. Some operators claim that they are. The Office of De-
fense Transportation holds that long hauls should be for railroads, and
the shorter hauls for tank trucks.
The CHAIRMAN. They are generally used for transportation for local
dealers?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, sir.
Finally, there is the mater of the immediate improvement of pipe
lines. You will note I have at present omitted tankers from that
category, because tankers are now practically omitted. We must there-
fore develop what might be called mostly overland transportation at
least equal to the total amount of transportation facilities which were
available prior to the war bytankers. That is a job in which time
absolutely is of the essence.
I would like to read and insert in the record, if I may, Mr. Chair-
man, a statement issued by the Petroleum Coordinator recently, about
the program designed primarily to increase fuel-oil supplies in the
East which will in part answer your questions, after which we can
have a further discussion of the subject.
The statement of the Petroleum Coordinator for War says:
A far-reaching program, designed to increase heavy fuel-oil supplies, in the
East, and to increase still further the extraordinary movement of oil by tank
car, is called for by a directive issued by the Office of the Petroleum Coordinator
for War.
The program provides for:
1. Formation of a Joint Tank Car Subcommittee for the East, Middle West, and
Gulf coast districts, charged with the responsibility of obtaining maximum
efficiency in the use of all tank cars employed by the petroleum industry, assuring
that such tank cars are utilized to meet the critical problems of petroleum
supply in these districts.
Last week 46,000 tank cars were in service, a number considered
"beyond the realm of possibility only a few weeks ago. That number
is steadily increasing.
The statement of the' Office of Petroleum Coordinator for War
continues:
2. Movement of 75,000 additional barrels of heavy fuel oil daily from the Gulf
coast and 75,000 barrels daily from the Middle West.






82 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

3. Arrangement of east coast refinery operations so that minimum amounts of
crude oil shall be used by refineries which are making petroleum war products;
and so that heavy fuel-oil ] i,..lIi i iii, will be increased at the expense of gaso-
line.
That means making more fuel oil and less gasoline.
The statement continues:
4. Apportionment cf an additional 100,000 barrels of east Texas crude oil into
the East daily in order that refinery operations in this area may be maintained
at 400,000 barrels daily.
That 400,000 barrels daily, of course, is the minimum amount that
must be refined to supply fuel-oil products which the refinery in-
dustry in the East is called upon to produce.
The statement continues:
6. Movement of 10,000 additional barrels of gasoline daily into the East by
Great Lakes tankers.
7. il i.'. w.' of the Southeastern States from points of entry on the Gulf coast
and the Mississippi River.
That is what I referred to when I mentioned coastal movements.
The statement continues:
8. Utilization of rail facilities for movement of at least 100,000 barrels of oil'
daily up the Atlantic seaboard from the South.
If those rail facilities are not available, as hoped, some substitute
means will have to be found, because from the South to our Atlantic
seaboard is one of the areas which seems to be least cluttered up by
transportation at present.
Mr. RANKIN. You referred to the transportation of 400,000 barrels
daily from the East Texas field. Why not include the Louisiana and
Mississippi fields. They produce about 500,000 barrels a day in those
two States, do they not ?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, sir; and actual movements are being made from
those points. Attention was called to Texas because Texas is furthest
away from New England at present, and is suffering far more severely
as a result of its obstructed outlets than are Louisiana, Arkansas, or
Mississippi. New Mexico is suffering even still worse.
Mr. RANKIN. Of course, what we are after is to get oil to the East,
and it seems to me the shorter distance you have to bring it the more
you can bring over the same lines and at less expense.
Mr. ALLEN. That is true. However, our big reserves of oil are in
Texas, and peculiarly enough Texas is used to producing just about
the amount of oil that the east coast consumes, roughly around a
million and a half barrels a day.
At present the situation in Texas is tragic, and in New Mexico also.
because of that obstructed outlet, which precludes the movement of
sufficient quantities of oil out of Texas to enable the producers of
that State to have enough income to amortize their bank loans and
pay operating expenses. It is a case where shortage and inconvenience
to consumers in one district results in a parallel shortage and incon-
venience to producers of another district a thousand miles away.
Mr. RANKIN. Right in that connection, what we are looking for, and
what we are interested in, is the other end of the line, in giving the
oil to the seacoast.
There is the Mississippi field, with 100,000 barrels a day, on the east
side of the Mississippi River.







INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 83

Mr. ALLEN. That is being moved.
Mr. RANKIN. That field is much closer to the seacoast than to the
Texas field, and the economic situation in the Mississippi field is prob-
ably about as bad as that in Texas.
It seems to me our immediate and most important interest is in get-
ting this oil and gasoline to the Atlantic seaboard, and you have several
hundred miles less distance to bring it from the MI; i pp1i or Louisiana
fields than from the Texas fields.
Mr. ALLEN. I would like to say with respect to that, Congressman,
that as to Mississippi's present production of 90,000 barrels daily that
is its maximum production. That is being moved principally to the
East at present, but it is a relatively small amount to meet the essential
requirements.
Mr. RANKIN. You say that is its maximum production. In Janu-
ary they produced 92,900 barrels a day, and I was informed the other
day that that had gone up to 100,000 barrels, and was rapidly increas-
ing, with new wells being brought in.
Whether that is the maximum or not, it is more economical to bring
the oil from the Mississippi field than to bring it from some field 500
or 600 miles further west.
Mr. ALLEN. That is true.
Mr. RANKIN. You do not have to cross the Mississippi River.
Mr. ALLEN. That is the reason it is being brought to the East. But
100,000 barrels a day of Mississippi oil, I would like to point out, is
only at the most one-twelfth of what is needed.
Mr. RANKIN. That is true, but you spoke of bringing 100,000 bar-
rels a day from the East Texas field.
In the Louisiana field, the production is 341,000 barrels a day, and
I presume a portion of that oil is produced on the east side of the
Mississippi River.
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, sir; a considerable portion is refined on the east
side. A very considerable amount of refined products are moved in
tank cars.
Mr. RANKIN. Were you in the oil business before you came here?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes. I came from Canada, where I had charge of con-
servation in Canada.
Mr. RANKIN. Were you in a private oil company before that?
Mr. ALLEN. Some years ago.
Mr. RANKIN. Which company were you with ?
Mr. ALLEN. My last petroleum connection was with the old prede-
cessor of the Continental Oil Co.
Mr. RANKIN. What was the name of that company?
Mr. ALLEN. It was called the Continental Oil Co., but I want to
point out that it was not the present Continental Oil Co., which re-
sulted from a merger.
Mr. RANKIN. You pointed out about the different methods of trans-
portation of oil, and one method you have mentioned is the barge line.
Is not that less than a third of the cost of the oil tankers?
Mr. ALLEN. Depending upon the length of the movement, both in
terms of money and in steel.
Mr. RANKIN. It has proved to be, I will say, about one-third, or
probably less than one-third of the cost of transportation by tank cars.
Is not that correct?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, sir; tank cars are the most expensive.







84 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

Mr. RANKIN. It is less than one-half of the expense of transporting
by pipe line.
Mr. ALLEN. In small pipe lines.
Mr. RANKIN. So you would be in favor of the completion of this
barge line across Florida in order to give us an unbroken barge route
from the border of Mexico around to the Atlantic seaboard ?
Mr. ALLEN. I would like to say at this time that I feel that I am
trespassing on the time of Major Parton, our director of transporta-
tion, and an expert on those subjects, who has been called to appear
before the committee tomorrow. I would prefer, if I may, not to
touch upon something which will be covered by Major Parton as an
expert on barge and marine transportation. I am not going to pose
as an expert on canal or barge movements myself, and would only be
taking Major Parton's time, so, if I may, I would like to keep on the
general subject.
Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Allen, you have not said anything about the Pacific
Northwest, Oregon, and Washington. What is the situation there?
Mr. ALLEN. In the Pacific Northwest the situation is one as to which
British Columbia, Vancouver, and Victoria have been completely sup-
plied with oil from California by means of tankers. Railroad trans-
portation is being used to some extent, but the main reliance is still upon
tankers, and actually a limited number of tankers are now moving
oil to an effective and satisfactory degree into that area. We are trying
to arrange so that will continue.
Mr. ANGELL. But a good many of the tankers have been drawn
away from that 'territory to take care of the eastern situation and else-
where due to the loss of so many tankers by submarines.
Mr. ALLEN. The situation is just a little reversed, because at present
our nman tanker requirements are in the Pacific, and I mean the Pacific
broadly, and the reduction of tanker service in the Northwest has
resulted from withdrawing them for military use, principally.
Mr. ANGELL. Have you given any attention to the possibility of
constructing wooden barges to supplement that service to take oil
from the California oil fields north into Oregon and Washington?
Mr. ALLEN. Our office has made and is making a study of that, and
that is a point that Major Parton will touch upon tomorrow.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Allen, can you tell us how much steel is in a
tank car?
Mr. ALLEN. I would like to ask Mr. Swanson if he can answer that.
Mr. SWANSON. I cannot answer that; I do not know.
The CHAIRMAN. A tank car holds 225 barrels, does it not ?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes; the larger ones.
The CHAIRMAN. With 80 cars to a train, that would be 18,000 bar-
rels in a train. I was wondering how much steel would be necessary
to convey those 18,000 barrels.
Mr. ALLEN. I am informd. Mr. Chairman, that the average of
the larger tank cars is about 60 tons of steel and cast iron.
The CHAIRMAN. How much steel in an ordinary river barge?
Mr. ALLEN. About 130 tons, I think.
The CHAIRMAN. And they will hold how many barrels ?
Mr. ALLEN. Nine thousand barrels is about the average barge ca-
pacity as they are constructed these days, with some larger and some
smaller.







INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 85

The CHAIRMAN. Then the tankers will hold from 50,000 to 130,000
barrels?
Mr. ALLEN. Up to 150,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Those are the larger ones?
Mr. ALLEN. The average is still, for all practical purposes, down
around 70,000 barrels.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you not believe that any mode of inland trans-
portation of oil, except for local consumption, throughout the country
will go back to tankers after peace is restored ?
Mr. ALLEN. I would like to comment on that in this way, that tank-
ers became popular because of their superior economies over pipe lines.
The pipe lines with which tankers had to compete were 8- and 10-inch
lines which would only move limited quantities of oil. Recently we
had the same kind of calculations applied to large pipe lines that have
applied to large tankers, and they disclosed the fact that when we get
into 24- and 30-inch pipe lines we have a basis for continuing competi-
tion to the tanker service. That is an interesting possibility which
Mr. Parton will discuss further tomorrow.
He will also be able to present and will present the various costs of
these forms of transportation in terms of tons of steel per barrel which,
in these critical times, is largely on the ground. The difference, pri-
marily, between pipe lines and all other forms of mobile transportation
is that the pipe line does not have to go back for another load empty.
That is the essential difference.
The CHAIRMAN. As to the 24-inch pipe lines, there are not many of
those in use, are there ?
Mr. ALLEN. There are two of those now actually in service for oil
transportation, one in Oklahoma and the other through from coast line
to coast line.
The CHAIRMAN. Does it not require a great deal of power to pump
crude oil through those pipes ?
Mr. ALLEN. It does.
The CHAIRMAN. About how far apart in reasonably level country
would pumping stations be ?
Mr. ALLEN. About 40 miles, and sometimes 50.
The CHAIRMAN. If you get into mountainous country, how far apart
would they have to be?
Mr. ALLEN. They have to be grouped considerably closer together,
as, for example, in crossing the Alleghanies. It depends on the topog-
raphy as to the spacing of the pipe line stations.
The CHAIRMAN. Does it require more power to pump crude oil than
gasoline?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, sir; and more power for fuel oil than for crude oil.
The CHAIRMAN. If a pipe line is established across Florida, is it
your opinion there ought really to be three pipes there, one for fuel oil,
one for crude oil, and one for gasoline.
Mr. ALLEN. That would really await an analysis of what the demand
is for those products. I would assume, ordinarily, that there would
be a very heavy demand for domestic heating oil this winter. That
is the kind of fuel oil that our apartment houses use to keep us warm.
That fuel oil is light enough to be handled relatively easy, and if the
pipe line were devoted to that, of a medium size, it might add mate-
rially to our comfort and health next winter. Whether a gasoline
line is vital or not depends on such factors as the gasoline output of







86 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

the refineries that will use 100,000 barrels a day economically, and
whether we have cars and tires enough to use that gasoline.
As regards fuel oil, that is a most difficult product to pump through
a pipe line because of its viscosity, and for which the p.,ni ii'in; stations
must be closer together, so it might appear that whatever water trans-
portation remains available, by tankers, or barge, or what have you,
should be held almost exclusively for the transportation of that heavy
fuel oil, which is so difficult to transport in a pipe line.
Crude oil, or stove oil, gasoline, and domestic fuel oil all are readily
susceptible of pipe-line transportation, whether for short or long
distances, and the decision as to one, two, or three lines across Florida
or anywhere else would ultimately be made on the basis of the de-
mand for the products that are going to be carried across.
The CHAIRMAN. As to oil that is only conveyed to the East by
tankers, about what proportion of that would be gasoline?
Mr. ALLEN. That would vary from one season of the year to the
other, and, if I may, I would like to ask Mr. Swanson to touch upon
that at a little greater length. That is a seasonal variation.
Mr. SWANSON. I will have to start first with the fact that of the
total consumption on the eastern seaboard 60 percent was brought in
in the form of finished products, 40 percent as crude oil which was
refined at the east coast refineries, and on the east coast the demand
divides itself so that roughly about one-third of the total consumption
on the eastern seaboard was gasoline.
The CHAIRMAN. What proportion of that was refined in the East
and what proportion in the Southwest?
Mr. SWANSON. Roughly, the same proportion, about one-third being
refined on the eastern seaboard and about two-thirds being brought in.
Mr. SMITH. In reference to your estimate of 1,200,000 barrels a day
as the minimum requirements for next year, does that include fuel
oil?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, sir. That estimate, however, was very realistic
about gasoline.
Mr. RANKIN. So far as the Pacific coast is concerned, they get prac-
tically all of their oil in California, do they not?
Mr. ALLEN. Not quite all of it. Eastern Washington and Oregon,
the so-called inland empire district, is supplied to some extent from
oil produced in Montana and Wyoming and refined at Spokane.
Mr. RANKIN. The production in California is about 650,000 barrels
a day?
Mr. ALLEN. That is right.
Mr. RANKIN. And in Wyoming it is about 80,000 barrels a day ?
Mr. ALLEN. It will not go quite that high at present, but it is on that
order of magnitude.
Mr. RANKIN. Probably 81,000 barrels a day in January.
Mr. ALLEN. That is right.
Mr. RANKIN. Is that sufficient to supply the west coast?
Mr. ALLEN. No, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. You mean the California and Wyoming oil-and you
said there was some in Montana ?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes; about 19,000 barrels being produced right now by
the Montana oil field; that is my last report. They are also affected
by an obstructed outlet.






INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 87

Mr. RANKIN. That, added to the Wyoming oil, makes about 100,000
barrels, which, with 650,000 barrels in California, would be 750,000
barrels.
Is that sufficient for the requirements of the west coast in the present
situation?
*Mr. ALLEN. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. So it will not be necessary to pipe any of this oil, or
to transport this oil from Texas, Oklahoma, or -Louisiana to the west
coast.
Mr. ALLEN. Not immediately.
Mr. RANKIN. About how much oil is produced in the east Texas
field? When you refer to the east Texas field I presume you mean
that area around Longview.
Mr. ALLEN. That east Texas field is the greatest oil field in this
country, with the greatest amount of reserves and the greatest--
Mr. RANKIN. How much production has it?
Mr. ALLEN. That production-I would like to say first they cannot
produce every day because of the lack of outlet. The railroad com-
mission of Texas assigns each well a certain amount and then gives it
a number of producing days.
During the course of the month of May I believe the east Texas
field will average throughoutthe month something like 300,000 bar-
rels a day.
Mr. RANKIN. That is something like the production in Louisiana.
The Louisiana production, I believe, is 341,000 barrels a day.
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SMITH. Your rationing program goes into effect in Oregon and
Washington on June 1 of this year?
Mr. ALLEN. There again I would have to plead ignorance. Our
office is not in charge of the rationing program, you understand.
Mr. SMITH. I was wondering what steps were being taken to relieve
that situation.
Mr. ALLEN. The actual steps being taken are the building up and
filling of all stocks available in Washington and Oregon. As you
probably know, they were seriously depleted a month or so ago to a
point where important industries at Seattle had only a 1 or 2 days'
supply.
It has been necessary, and deemed so, to completely fill that storage
for petroleum products in that area, and the present transportation
facilities are being pressed to the utmost to do that.
It is expected that there may be some material realization of that
program within the next month or so, unless a wholly unprecedented
situation with respect to other demands develops.
Mr. SMITH. You do not expect that rationing to be permanent; it is
just a temporary measure for 30 or 60 days? Arrangements will be
made to supply sufficient gasoline and fuel oil for heating this coming
fall and winter?
Mr. ALLEN. It is the object of our office to get sufficient oil there.
As to what may be done with respect to requirements for rubber con-
servation I am unable to say.
Mr. SMITH. Is it your opinion that wooden barges are practical for
the transportation of oil?
Mr. ALLEN. I used to ride on wooden barges on the Monongahela
River, and I found them entirely practical for that purpose. My






88 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

knowledge of their use for oil is based entirely on what I have heard
from Major Parton, who will be available for further discussion of
that subject.
Mr. SMITH. Out in the Pacific Northwest we have quantities of fir
timber that could be used for that purpose, and we could also manu-
facture boilers and engines for the tug boats in that area, if necessary.
Mr. ALLEN. Major Parton feels that for certain types of oil and for
certain harbor conditions, where the fire risk does not preclude their
use, wooden barges could be used, except for gasoline.
The CHAIRMAN. They will not serve the purpose for gasoline ?
Mr. ALLEN. He does not think so.
Mr. SMITH. Wooden tugs would be adequate, would they not ?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes.
Mr. ANGELL. It is your belief, is it, Mr. Allen, with respect to fuel
,oil for heating purposes in Oregon and Washington that unless some
unusual or unforeseen thing should occur, not now in sight, there will
be a sufficient supply of oil for the coming winter ?
Mr. ALLEN. I think so. We are exerting every effort to that end.
Mr. CULKIN. Your statement has been most interesting and con-
structive, Mr. Allen, but I do not see that it leads to any concrete recom-
mendation as to curing this situation.
Mr. DONDERO. I was going to renew my question.
Mr. ALLEN. And I was going to renew my answer.
Mr. CULKIN. The gentleman just inspired me; I borrowed this
thought from him, and I acknowledge it cheerfully. What is the pro-
posed solution to this eastern and northeastern situation? I am in-
formed that we are going to be 8,000,000 tons of coal short in the North-
east this winter and that there is going to be an equal shortage of fuel
oil. Now, what is your recommendation to cure that?
Mr. ALLEN. Well, because it seemed quite obvious to us that there
is no one single method to meet it, we are proposing and recommending
that each of the following methods be utilized and expanded to the
utmost: Inland coastal barges and-
Mr. CULKIN (interposing). I heard you make the statement before.
Mr. ALLEN. Pipe lines.
Mr. CULKIX. You would repeat about the same statement you made
before?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes.
Mr. CULKIN. Which is in the nature of a generalization, of course.
Now, how about the proposal that is confronting this committee? The
proposal is to carry the products through the intercoastal canals and
then by pipe line across Florida. That was the recommendation of
the Chief of Engineers. Do you concur in that ?
Mr. ALLEN. I want to say this that our office is definitely committed
to the increased use of such coastal facilities and Major Parkins, I
believe, will include a recommendation for an interim pipe line, we
will say, across Florida; to which I might add that I believe such a
line may in the very near future, if explorations in southern Georgia
and southern Alabama are successful, be supplied from locally pro-
duced crude oil; all of which I believe would contribute to the merits
of the project.
Mr. CULKIN. What do you figure would be the capacity that the
proposed line would have; how many barrels would that provide for
the East and Northeast?







INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 89

Mr. ALLEN. Well suppose we put in a 10-inch line and it is used
exclusively for light products such as domestic heating oil, you might
get 50,000 to 60,000 barrels a day; and if you had another pipe line of
8 inches for example for gasoline, that might run around 40,000 barrels
a day, that would make a probable total of 90,000 to 100,000 barrels
daily, which would entail a like demand for barge transportation with
equipment at the delivery end.
Mr. CULKIN. May I ask this question: Is there any complication re-
garding priorities in getting this pipe line that you know of ?
Mr. ALLEN. Well there are serious difficulties in obtaining any pipe
because of munitions and absolute military essential needs.
Mr. CULKIN. Have you had any definite experience in that line,
trying to get priority allowed
Mr. ALLEN. I have; yes; that is a part of my particular job.
Mr. CULKIN. Yes.
Mr. ALLEN. I have had several recent occasions where priorities have
been denied because of the greater demands which Major Parkins will
give you.
Mr. CULKIN. The railroads have opposed the granting of priority ?
Mr. ALLEN. Not to my knowledge; I have not heard of it.
Mr. CULKIN. Who has opposed it?
Mr. ALLEN. There is no opposition, as I understand it, at all. On
the contrary, the members of the War Production Board, who are
charged with the responsibility of allocating steel are just as regret-
ful as they can be that they cannot allot steel for all uses.
Mr. CULKIN. I know; they refuse to give priority; is that it ?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes.
Mr. CULKIN. And they shed "crocodile tears" when they tell you
-you cannot have it.
Mr. ALLEN. They are quite sad about it sometimes.
Mr. CULKIN. But they do not grant it.
Mr. RANKIN. What isthe capacity of that line-
Mr. CULKIN. Just a moment, Mr. Rankin. You gave us a back-
ground, I believe, of service with Continental Oil Co.
Mr. ALLEN. I was with the old Continental Oil Co., which was for-
merly in Colorado and California, prior to 1929.
Mr. CULKIN. And you had some service in Canada.
Mr. ALLEN. Yes.
Mr. CULKIN. How long were you there?
Mr. ALLEN. About a year. I was called up there at the beginning,
soon after the beginning of the war.
Mr. CULKIN. Yes.
Mr. ALLEN. And I was called down here after the war developed.
Mr. CULKIN. How long have you been in this field of work?
Mr. ALLEN. I started in the oil business up here in West Virginia in
1916.
Mr. CULKIN. And you have been continuously in the business since ?
Mr. ALLEN. Except for 3 years that I was in the steel business.
The CHAIRMAN. You are a native of West Virginia, are you ?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. I happen to be one myself.
Mr. ALLEN. We have a community of interest, I believe.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rankin.






90 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

Mr. RANKIN. What is the capacity of that pipe line across from.
Carrabelle, Fla.?
Mr. ALLEN. Across to what point?
Mr. RANKIN. The pipe line coming from Carrabelle to St. Joseph.
Mr. ALLEN. Yes; the southeastern pipe line, Mr. Rankin, for prod-
ucts running up to Chattanooga; that is the one I believe you refer to.
Mr. RANKIN. Does that come from the Texas field ?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. What is the capacity-daily delivery capacity?
Mr. ALLEN. My recollection is about 24,000 barrels daily.
The CHAIRMAN. That is an 8-inch pipe.
Mr. RANKIN. Eight inches.
The CHAIRMAN. So I am told.
Mr. ALLEN. It is not being used to its complete capacity at the present
time, I believe. Mr. Swanson informs me that the rate of capacity is
30,000-daily capacity-but it is unable to operate above 18,000 per day
on account of the lack of pumps and pumping facilities.
Mr. RANKIN. It is totally inadequate to meet the needs.
Mr. ALLEN. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. As they exist at this time.
Mr. ALLEN. There is also the Plantation pipe line extending up to
Greensboro, N. C.
Mr. RANKIN. What you are advocating is to bring the oil through
the intercoastal waterway to Florida in barges.
Mr. ALLEN. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. And then pipe it across Florida temporarily until the
Florida canal is finished.
Mr. ALLEN. Any way to augment the present flow by water from
Texas to Florida.
Mr. RANKIN. But you would bring it by water around to the Florida
coast?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Allen, you spoke of steel priorities. You have had
some recent experience with the War Production Board concerning
steel?
Mr. ALLEN. Almost daily.
Mr. SMITH. There is an acute shortage, is there not, at the present
time ?
Mr. ALLEN. Very definitely.
Mr. SmITH. And it is becoming more aggravated as time goes on.
Mr. ALLEN. It is for that reason that a part of Major Parkin's duties
have been to survey all existing pipe-line systems that are not being
used and determine, as far as possible, where they can be dug up and
relaid where they will do the most good. There is something like
1,400 miles of pipe line that-
Mr. SMITH (interposing). As you know, I have been advocating for
more than 2 years the building of some cargo ships out of wood instead
of steel on the ground that I have been of the opinion that, sooner
or later, we would have a shortage of steel, and that condition exists
now, and has for some time.
Mr. ALLEN. And probably will exist for some time in the future also.
Mr. S ITH. Yes.







INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 91

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Allen, a good many years ago I had some ex-
perience operating waterworks with wooden pipe. Have you ever
had any experience with wooden pipe?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes; I have used wood pipe, but not for the high pres-
sure necessary for oil transportation, running from 600 to 1,000 pounds.
I have used wooden pipe for relatively low pressure, and particularly
pipe made from the redwoods on the Pacific coast that is very durable
and satisfactory for that purpose.
The CHAIRMAN. But it would have to be wrapped with copper wire
would it not ?
Mr. ALLEN. Or steel bands, or something of that kind. And then,
Mr. Chairman, there is another type of wood pipe of the laminated
type, with one layer laid on another, which make it quite strong, but
it is still not recommended for the pressures which are necessary for
the high pressure oil line.
Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Allen, I was interested in the statement regarding
oil movement on the Great Lakes in tankers. How does that oil reach
the tankers; by barge or pipe line?
Mr. ALLEN. It goes to the south Chicago district by pipe line and is
moved up through Lake Michigan and around down into Lake Erie
and on to Ontario by lake tankers, as they are called, and for a limited
distance by barges.
Mr. DONDERO. The point I am interested in is this: Does any oil move
up the Mississippi River by barges from the Texas and Louisiana
fields?
Mr. ALLEN. It moves up the Mississippi, but not in this particular
district. It moves by barges up the Ohio.
Mr. DONDERO. To Pittsburgh.
Mr. ALLEN. To Cincinnati, Ashland, and Pittsburgh; yes. That is
where the principal barge movements are.
The CHAIRMAN. The oil moving to Chicago comes principally from
Kansas and Oklahoma, does it not ?
Mr. ALLEN. It also comes from the West because of the demands of
the midcontinent refining district in the production of productions
which are shipped on to the east where they use every form of trans-
portation they can to bring the oil to the refinery.
Mr. DONDERO. What is the quickest method of solving the need; by
barges or by the pipe line across Florida?
Mr. ALLEN. I do not know.
Mr. DONDERO. We have some testimony that the pipe line is the
quickest solution of our problem.
Mr. ALLEN. You understand that would depend upon the amount
of dynamite you can get behind it, and by dynamite I mean what pos-
sible force can be put behind the project. Remarkable things can
be done with enough force back of them. My inability to answer the
question results from a lack of understanding of the force that would
be put behind each project.
Mr. CULKIN. The plan proposed, so far as I understand it, is to
bring the oil from Texas through the intercoastal waterways to Card-
belle and by pipe line across Florida to the Atlantic coast-line canal,
so it involves the use of a pipe line across Florida.
Mr. ALLEN. Yes.







92 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

Mr. CULKIN. The only thing that is involved is the building of
bottoms to take the oil, and we have had some testimony to the effect
that they could be built with a great deal of speed.
Mr. ALLEN. I have seen some rather statements regarding the con-
struction of barges.
Mr. CULKIN. And the whole thing could be achieved in a matter of
approximately 4 nionths.
Mr. ALLEN. Well, I think the pipe line could be laid across Florida
by using second-hand pipe with pumps that are moved from some
other place.
Mr. CULKIN. There was some testimony here that there is 180 miles
of pipe line available-
The CHAIRMAN. That is, 10 inches.
Mr. CULKIN. Eight-inch.
The CHAIRMAN. Was it 8-inch ?
Mr. CULKIN. Yes. Is that matter being thoroughly investigated in
your office?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, it is; and needless to say, the larger the pipe the
greater the capacity.
Mr. CULKIN. You are getting all the data possible on the available
pipe?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes. Major Parkins will have some very interesting
figures for you on that.
Mr. CULKIN. It seems to me that we have got to stop theorizing and
get down to action.
Mr. ALLEN. We certainly have; there never was a time when it
was needed more. While summertime is not here yet we know that
winter is approaching just as fast as summer.
Mr. CULKIN.. Just one more question. How many bottoms are avail-
able on the Great Lakes at this time ?
Mr. ALLEN. How many barges ?
Mr. CULKIN. Yes; we will say barges, self-propelled.
Mr. ALLEN. There is a very limited number. I believe that five would
be about correct. Some barges were taken out of the Great Lakes and
put into service elsewhere to meet last winter's demand; I believe they
are going back now.
Mr. CULKIN. I have a report to the effect that there were a number
of boats that were available in the port of New York; some of them
self-propelled and some of the scows.
Mr. ALLEN. I would rather let someone else answer that. I have
heard there were a number of scows in use.
Mr. CULKIN. I called Major Parkins and told him I understood
there was a considerable number of barges that are available in the
port of New York. Now my thought was that those could be used.
I do not suppose that the scows can go through the Lakes with gas and
oil.
Mr. ALLEN. I rather question it. I have been on the Lakes-Lake
Michigan-in a violent storm and the good-sized ship that I was in got
fairly rough treatment. I would hesitate to say what would happen
to these barges.
Mr. CULKIN. That is, movement will probably have to be with self-
propelled boats.







INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 93

Mr. ALLEN. I suppose so. I am not an authority on ships, how-
ever.
Mr. CULKIN. It seems that we have two bites to reach the Northeast:
One is to go up the Mississippi and by pipe line down the lake, to take
care of the industrial Northeast; and also the industrial areas; and
the other is the pipe line across Florida-
Mr. ALLEN (interposing). But all of that does not add up to what is
needed. We are considering that but all of that does not add up to the
amount of oil that is going to be needed. That is the reason I answered
the question in that way; if we do include barges and include the con-
tinuous use of tank cars and the use of the intercoastal waterways,
including the construction of pipe lines, the relaying of all pipe that
can be found, even with that there is still not going to be the amount
of oil that we have been accustomed to and we are going to have barely
the minimum level of 1,200,000 barrels that are required. That is the
reason I say use all of them.
Mr. CULKIN. If we had the inland waterways the thing would be
solved?
Mr. ALLEN. Provided the tankers are not needed for other purposes.
The CHAIRMAN. Foreign service, for instance.
Mr. ALLEN. And for military service, a thing which is entirely pos-
sible, of course. For instance, a tanker moving to New York might
not take very long, but if it has to cross the Pacific it takes five of six
times as long; and we may be required to move oil to our far-flung
operations all of which require oil. Good steel, aluminum, and other
materials are simply useless without the power to move them; and
our requirement for oil on the seven seas is going to increase the de-
mand upon our oil transportation facilities.
The CHAIRMAN. And the oil production in the southwest Pacific is
in the hands of the enemy now.
Mr. ALLEN. Unfortunately it is.
The CHAIRMAN. That will require many more tankers to supply the
Army and Navy than would have been the,case if those fields had been
available to us.
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, indeed. The oil that is lost means that we will
have to supply our forces from other sources and that just means an
extra drain upon our own facilities.
The CHAIRMAN. It will be almost impossible to supply tankers for
domestic uses in the distribution of oil that is required for consump-
tion. All we can produce will have to go to the Army and Navy
services.
Mr. ALLEN. I suspect so, but I hope for the better, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. You hope we are mistaken.
Mr. ALLEN. I hope we are mistaken; yes.
The CHAIRMAN. On yesterday the statement was made before the
committee to the effect that a statement had been given out by the
Governor of Florida that there were a number of barges on the east
coast of Florida and plenty of gasoline there and none of it was being
moved up the intracoastal waterway of the Atlantic seaboard. Have
you any knowledge of the existence of barges of that kind ?
Mr. ALLEN. Not of my own knowledge.
"Mr. GREEN. May I state, Mr. Chairman, that I have here a list that
was submitted to Mr. J. R. Parten by Hon. W. D. Outman of Florida.







94 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

Mr. Parten is the water transportation man, and with your permission
I will offer this for the record.
(The list referred to follows:)
Wooden barges on Gulf coast
Laid up in Blackwater River (Santa Rosa County) :
3 barges 70 feet x 281/2 feet, approximately 6 feet depth.
1 barge 70 feet x 30% feet, approximately 6 feet depth.
2 barges 70 feet x 281 feet, approximately 6 feet depth.
2 barges 68 feet x 28 feet, approximately 6 feet depth.
1 barge 75 feet x 30 feet 7 inches, approximately 6 feet depth.
2 barges 68 feet x 28 feet 6 inches, approximately 6 feet depth.
1 haige 75 feet x 2t: feet 8 inches, approximately 6 feet depth.
2 barges 80 feet x 30 feet 7 inches, approximately 6 feet depth.
1 barge 110 feet x 30 feet 6 inches, approximately 6 feet depth.
3 barges 150 feet x 30 feet, approximately 9 feet depth.
Total, 18 barges.
Panama City and Choctawhatchee Bay:
10 barges 150 feet x 35 feet, approximately 6 feet depth.
1 barge 30 feet x 15 feet.
3 barges 150 feet x 30 feet.
STotal, 14 barges.
Apalachicola:
1 barge 50 feet x 24 feet.
1 barge 40 feet x 18 feet.
Pensacola-Mobile area (estimated):
10 barges 75 feet x 30 feet.
Tampa area (estimated) :
12 barges 75 feet x 30 feet.
The CHAIRMAN. The seagoing barges, we have been told, have been
used to carry coal from Norfolk up the coast.
Mr. ALLEN. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. I presume that that service is knocked out because
of the submarine menace.
Mr. ALLEN. I am not immediately advised on that, although I un-
derstand there were losses in the service recently.
The CHAIRMAN. If they are not going to be used for carrying coal,
do you think they could be used for transporting oil in the intracoastal
waterways?
Mr. ALLEN. I am informed that the coal barges of that type can be
used, subject to some considerable risk and remodeling before they
can be put into service; not a difficult amount, but a matter of several
days and some extra steel.
The CHAIRMAN. But they could operate from Norfolk?
Mr. CULKIN. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Up the Chesapeake, the Delaware River; in fact,
they could operate all the way from Norfolk up the Delaware up to
Trenton even if they draw 25 feet.
Any further questions? We thank you, Mr. Allen.
Mr. ALLEN. Thank you.
Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I hold in my hand a timely statement
addressed to the chairman, under date of May 14, 1942, by the
Honorable Fred L. Sanford, of De Funiak Springs, Fla., concerning
the bill before the committee. In fact, he gives his views regarding it.
With the chairman's permission, I suggest that it be made a part
of the record.








INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 95

The CHAIRMAN. I saw the letter. If there is no objection, it will
be made a part of the record.
(The letter referred to is as follows:)
SANFORD SERVICE CO.,
De Funiak Springs, Fla., May 14, 19112.
Hon. JOSEPH J. MANSFIELD, M. C.,
Chairman, Rivers and Harbors Committee,
Washington, D. C.
DEAR MR. MANSFIELD: I have given very careful consideration to the barge
and pipe-line bill, which was proposed by Senator Pepper, to go across the
State, and his further suggestion of using the Fort Myers to Stewart Canal
for distributing petroleum products. If you will secure the regulations govern-
ing the use of barges in the Gulf or outside waters you will find that in order
to be used in outside waters barges must be equipped with houses, lifeboats,
carry crews of two or more men, and it would cost from $3,000 to $5,000 to
equip each barge and would take thousands of tons of steel and thousands of
man-hours of labor of welders who should not be taken away from shipbuilding
work. Then it would put each barge out of service from 2 to 4 weeks while
the work was being done. In addition to that, and the most serious objection
that I see to it, is that these barges would have to be towed in the Gulf by
tugs which would be going so slowly that they would be ideal targets for
torpedoing by submarines. I see the same objections to a barge line across
from the Withlacoochee River to the east coast. I believe that I am safe in
saying that not 2 percent of the steel oil barges in service along the Gulf coast
and on the inland waters are fitted up to go outside.
It seems to me that the only way that the barge canal from the Withla-
coochee River across the State could be utilized by tugs and oil barges would
be to complete the Intracoastal Canal from near Apalachicola to St. Marks,
and from St. Marks along the west coast to the Withlacoochee, so that barges
could be handled on inland waters all of the way to the east coast and as far
north as Washington and Baltimore. If a pipe line were put across from the
Withlacoochee River, the eastern terminal would be where there is only a 6-
or 7-foot channel as far as Jacksonville, and it would be impractical to serve
this pipe line with tugs and barges on account of the submarine menace, while
if the pipe line were put across from Apalachicola or Carrabelle to Jacksonville
they would strike a deeper canal going from Jacksonville to as far north as
Washington and Baltimore, and 98 percent of the steel oil barges could imme-
.diately begin making deliveries along the intracoastal waterways to the western
terminals of such a pipe line.
The provision which was made in the Mansfield bill for widening and deepening
the intracoastal waterways from Corpus Christi to Apalachinola and building this
other canal would be a great improvement, for the present width of 100 feet in the
channel and a 9- or 10-foot channel slows up our speed with loaded barges very
much. With a 12-foot channel, our tugs can pull the same loads at from 1 to 2
miles more per hour, or an increase of 20 to 25 percent in their speed, which
would, in my opinion, enable each outfit to make at least one more round trip
monthly between New Orleans and Apalachicola, and this should increase their
deliveries by 25 to 35 percent.
At present we have two 150-horsepower tugs and three barges. We have an-
other 300,000-gallon barge under construction which will be delivered within
the next week or 10 days. In addition to that, we have another 300000-gallon
barge which will be delivered about July 1, and a new 220-horsepower steel tug.
When we get these in, we shall be in position to deliver more than a million and
a quarter gallons at each round trip of the three tugs and barges.
One of our 150-horsepower tugs with 2 barges transports the equivalent of 80
railroad tank cars at a trip and can make 4 round trips a month.
I am writing every Congressman in the States along the coast from New York
to Texas, telling them of these conditions and asking their support for your
bill, which carries an appropriation to do the work. This is very necessary be-
cause of the delay which will be caused if the bill merely authorizes the building
-of the canal without providing funds with which to do the work.


72774-42--- 7






96 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE
If there is any further information which you desire, I shall be glad to furnish
it to the best of ny ability.
Yours very truly,
SANFORD SERVICE CO.,
"FRED L. SANFORD, General Manager.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, if the committee will wait for just a
moment, Representative Boggs, of Louisiana, would like to make a
brief statement.
The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear you.

STATEMENT OF HON. HALE BOGGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Mr. BoGos. I shall only make a brief statement, Mr. Chairman.
I have taken the liberty of appearing to tell you that I know of no
project anywhere within the Gulf coast area which is considered more
important to the whole economy of that section of the Nation than
the completion of the intracoastal waterways. This proposal has
been pending here for a period of years and the people of my section
have always recognized its importance. The Intracoastal Canal has
been a source of constantly expanding commerce.
At the present time, as Congressman Boykin has just told the com-
mittee-and he has just returned from a trip to Mobile and New
Orleans-we are beginning to realize more and more, particularly
as a result of the submarine menace, the vital importance of this
protected waterway.
I fully understand the necessity for building the pipe line immedi-
ately, and it should be done without delay. But there are many very
commanding reasons. for completing the canal link across Florida.
The first being that all types of commerce can move from Mexico to
Maine without fear of submarines. If the canal was now completed
rationing might not be necessary in the East.
The proposed pipe line is necessarily limited to the transportation
of petroleum products-crude oil, gasoline, and so forth.
Mr. GREEN. In limited quantities ?
Mr. Bocos. In limited quantities.
Now, there are many other strategic materials that come from Texas,
Louisiana, and the southwestern part of our country, particularly in
the field of chemicals-sulfur, salt, and the chemical derivatives of
petroleum. They cannot be transported by pipe line. But they can
be transported economically and efficiently by barge.
In addition, by the completion of this short link across Florida we
not only tie up the great Gulf coast area with the Atlantic seaboard,
but we also tie into that picture the vast network of inland waterways
which we have built throughout the Mississippi Valley. I can en-
visage the day when, with the completion of this link, we will have
made possible a system of commerce throughout the East, the South,
the Midwest, and the Mississippi Valley which will break down many
of the barriers which have heretofore interfered with the normal flow
of commerce and trade, particularly between the South and the North.
This should contribute materially to the normal economic develop-
ment of the entire Nation.
I know of no more important project from the standpoint of winning
the war. Certainly from the war standpoint it is absolutely vital that







INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE 97

we build this canal, because a canal carries everything that a barge
will carry, and a barge will carry almost anything. A pipe line car-
ries only petroleum or whatever you put into the pipe line.
The CHAIRMAN. I am sorry, Mr. Boggs, that some of the other mem-
bers of the committee are not present to hear your statement. You do
not have to appeal very strongly to those members who are here now.
By the way, I have been informed that great quantities of salt from
Louisiana are now needed up in Wilmington and other places in the
Northeast. Can you secure some statistics on that phase?
Mr. BOGGs. While I have no statistics. I know that very little salt
is now being moved because of the bottlenecks in transportation. Salt
is vitally important in many war industries and it is produced princi-
pally in Louisiana. Every salt miner in Louisiana desires the com-
pletion of the canal across Florida.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, may I have 1 minute before we adjourn?
The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.
Mr. MILLER. We have a number of witnesses from the Gulf coast
area, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas, who have come a long way at great
inconvenience and I might say, under present conditions in Washing-
ton, at great expense, to testify here, and many of them have come
prepared to develop the very line of argument suggested by the dis-
tinguished gentleman from Louisiana. I would like to request the
committee that they hear as many of these gentlemen this afternoon
as may be possible. We have some gentlemen here from the far-flung
reaches of the Mexican border, and they have a very interesting story
to tell about some of these very commodities that Mr. Boggs has re-
ferred to. I would like to suggest, if I may, and if I am not out of
order; that these gentlemen be heard this afternoon as speedily as
possible, and that they be permitted to tell their story.
The oil question has been covered very comprehensively and, I
think, convincingly. There are one or two other oil men here who will
have something to say. Major Parten will be here tomorrow. I want
to express in behalf of the proponents of the bill our appreciation of
Mr. Allen's coming here.
Mr. BOYKIN. He is still here.
Mr. M.ILnR. You may recall, Mr. Chairman, that when you re-
ql..:-r.:.1 him to come he merely agreed to do so, but. gave us to under-
stand that he did not care to invade the field of Major Parten in
respect to the transportation angle, but he kindly agreed to do what
he has already done-give you the benefit of this over-all picture of
the oil situation.
This afternoon, Mr. Chairman, we would like first to present Mr.
Lester F. Alexander, who is president of the Port Authority of New
Orleans and the State of Louisiana, which is a State agency, and who
is also one of the most experienced men in the Nation in respect to
water transportation, particularly barge transportation. Then we
would like to follow with some of our Texas people. I think that if an
average of 10 or 15 minutes can be given to each of them we can
place some information in the record that will be exceedingly val-
uable as showing an important point, which is that there are other
commodities produced along the Intracoastal Canal which are of
almost equal importance to oil in winning the war.
The CHAIRMAN. We will now recess until 2 o'clock.
(Thereupon a recess was taken.)






98 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND PIPE LINE

AFEER RECESS

The committee reconvened at 2 p. m., Hon. Joseph J. Mansfield
(chairman) presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, are you ready to proceed?
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, the next witness has been very active
in the development of waterways in the coastal areas for many years,
and I am glad to say that he has been an active member of the
Intercoastal Canal Association for more than a quarter of a century.
I might say, in passing, that he happens to be a native of Texas. He
is now the president of the Board of Commissioners of the Port of
New Orleans. It is my pleasure to present Mr. Lester F. Alexander.

STATEMENT OF LESTER F. ALEXANDER, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS OF THE PORT OF NEW ORLEANS

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee,
I have been engaged in transportation and in the construction of
inland-waterways equipment for quite a number of years. I wish
now to present a little memorandum as representing the Board of
Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans. Then, if you desire to
ask any questions about other matters before you, I will be glad to
answer them to the best of my ability.
The Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans was organ-
ized and exists for the purpose of facilitating, aiding and encouraging
the easy flow of commerce entering the port either by water, rail or
highway, and due to the strategic location of the port of New Orleans,
particularly as to water-borne commerce, our interests go far afield.
The port of New Orleans is the logical gateway to and from that
great producing and consuming area reaching from the Rio Grande
River on the north to the southernmost tip of Argentina on the south
and bounded on the east and west by the, Atlantic and Pacific Oceans,
fertile fields for exchange of commerce and other good neighborly
exchanges. The Mississippi River, with its numerous tributaries, pro-
vides the port of New Orleans with low-cost transportation to and from
the very heart of the producing and consuming center of the United
States.
Shortly after the turn of the century farsighted friends of lost-cost
water transportation, both in Louisiana and Texas, and headed by
Capt. Horace Harvey, of New Orleans, visualized the possibilities of
an intracoastal canal tapping the Mississippi River on the east and the
Rio Grande on the west. I know that you gentlemen are familiar with
the handicaps and obstructions that these early friends of the intra-
coastal canal had to contend with; however, the arguments they con-
tinued to present finally prevailed and they were given a canal 40 feet
wide and 5 feet deep, beginning at New Orleans and extending west-
ward, but utilizing all bayous, lakes, and bays where possible. The
pioneers of this movement were, of course, happy to obtain this small
recognition of their views, although they were not satisfied. The
value of the little 5-foot by 40-foot canal was soon demonstrated and
the howl for a wider and deeper canal, and one removed from the
dangers and delays occasioned by navigating the open waters of lakes
and bays, so manifested itself that a canal 9-foot by 100-foot bottom
width was authorized and provided.





University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs