RIVERS AND HARBORS OMNIBUS BILL

FRIDAY, MAY 22, 1953

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

Washington, D. C.

H. R. 3054 AND H. R. 3086-BILLS TO AUTHORIZE THE IMPROVEMENT OF EAST BASIN, LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH HARBOR, CALIF.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a. m., Hon. Homer D. Angell (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. ANGELL. There are two bills pending before the committee which we will now take up. They are H. R. 3054 by Mr. King, of California, and H. R. 3086, introduced by Mr. McDonough, of Čalifornia, which I understand are identical bills.

Without objection, the text of one of the bills will be set forth in the record.

(The bill reads as follows:)

[H. R. 3086, 83d Cong., 1st sess.]

▲ BILL To authorize the improvement of East Basin, Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor, California

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the project for improvement of East Basin, Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor, California, is hereby authorized in accordance with the report of the Chief of Engineers, dated February, 1953, printed as House Document Numbered at an estimated cost of $896,500: Provided, That the Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized to reimburse local interests for such work as may have been done upon this project subsequent to April 1, 1953, insofar as the same shall be approved by the Chief of Engineers and found to have been done in accordance with the project hereby authorized: Provided further, That such payment shall not exceed the sum of $896,500.

STATEMENT OF COL. W. D. MILNE, DEPUTY CHIEF OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS

Colonel MILNE. Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like to take a few minutes of the committee's time to go into the background of this project so as to give the committee a better understanding of the bill.

Los Angeles Harbor is one of the major harbors on the Pacific coast. In 1951 some 20 million tons of commerce were handled through that particular harbor. As early as 1946 the Congress recognized that Los Angeles Harbor was rapidly approaching the point where its then existing facilities would be seriously taxed and directed that

the Corps of Engineers make a review study to determine whether or not any modifications to the existing project should be done.

The corps undertook that review study and our division engineer submitted his recommendations to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors.

The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors in its review made several modifications and certain eliminations which I will explain in a minute, and then processed their favorable recommendation to the Chief of Engineers, who concurred with the Board and transmitted his report to the Bureau of the Budget for clearance with the program of the President.

The Bureau of the Budget was favorable to our recommendations and that report is now being transmitted to the Congress for authorization.

The particular bill that is under consideration this morning would authorize the report that the Corps of Engineers has favorably recommended to the Congress.

I would like go to the map and explain just briefly this report.
Mr. ANGELL. Very well.

Colonel MILNE. Los Angeles Harbor is a man-made harbor. The original project called for the construction of a breakwater to create the outer harbor and by channel dredging to maintain a channel along this general direction. In our review of the project our district engineer felt that additional area for future expansion of the harbor was required. He recommended the dredging of the so-called West Basin and, likewise, dredging of the East Basin.

The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors in its review felt that the justification for the West Basin was somewhat weak. They eliminated that from their project and recommended to the Chief of Engineers that all that be done was the dredging of this East Basin, which entails an area of about 80 acres in size. The particular problem there is simply this:

The main channel, 35 feet deep, runs in this direction and then a very narrow channel runs in this direction. Both of these channels are 35 feet deep. The city of Los Angeles has recently completed a very extensive terminal development involving the expenditure of some $8 to $10 million of private funds to build a modern terminal facility in this particular area adjacent to that relatively narrow channel. Large oceangoing liners are going to come up that channel to utilize those new facilities. Due to the narrow widths, the liners cannot turn around, but must back up some mile or mile and a half to the nearest turning basin and then turn around and come out.

In addition to that backing up, there will be a very serious hazard to all of the installations along the area because of these big ships moving without much control and subjected to strong winds, so that they can easily get completely out of control and cause serious damage to nearby facilities.

In addition to that, there is no chance for any development of any area due to the restricted channel.

This project, which has been recommended by the Chief of Engineers, would increase this area materially and permit the orderly development of terminal facilities that are so vitally required in the Los Angeles Harbor area.

The cost of the project as recommended by the Chief of Engineers is $1,202,500, of which the Federal Government's share is $896,500 and the non-Federal share is $306,000.

That is the background of the project and, as I said earlier, the bill under consideration would authorize the project that the corps recommended to the Congress.

There are 2 or 3 points in connction with that bill that I would like to bring out. The bill as written provides that local interests be reimbursed for such work as may have been done upon the project subsequent to April 1, 1953. In connection with that particular statement, we would like to point out and make clear to local interests that budget requests of the Department of the Army will not include funds to reimburse them before requests for funds which may be needed for projects of higher priority on the Department schedule.

I would like to mention also that in connection with a similar bill introduced in the Senate, S. 1060, our comments on that particular bill had not cleared either the Secretary of the Army or the Bureau of the Budget. Consequently, what I have said with regard to this bill does not necessarily represent the views of either of those departments. It is only the view of the Office of the Chief of Engineers at this time.

We have no objection to the enactment of the bill subject to the understanding that I have just mentioned on reimbursement to local interests. We also have several minor modifications in language.

In line 5 on page 1 we would like to insert between the words "the" and "report" these words, "plan and subject to the conditions contained in the." And on line 6, page 1, the word "February" should be eliminated and "January 23" substituted therefor.

Mr. ANGELL. Are there any questions?

Mr. MACHROWICZ. Is that not an error in line 7, where you indicate the cost is $896,500? The estimated total cost is $1,202,500, of which the Federal participation is $896,500.

Colonel MILNE. In those bills normally it has been the policy to include only the Federal Government cost, so that the $896,500 would be correct.

Mr. ANGELL. Colonel Milne, what is the proposed reimbursement to the city for funds already expended?

Colonel MILNE. This bill, if adopted by the Congress, would permit the city to go ahead and do the work on their own in accordance with the plan of the Corps of Engineers, and then be reimbursed at some later date.

Mr. ANGELL. Subject, of course, to the approval of the Army engineers?

Colonel MILNE. Yes, sir. And, of course, subject to the appropriations being forthcoming from the Congress.

I might state that it is my understanding-and this will be verified by local witnesses later-that the city of Los Angeles has started work on dredging in accordance with the plan we have recommended. Mr. MACK. Is there any precedent, Colonel, for allowing a community to be reimbursed for money which they expend prior to the time of the authorization of a project, or the appropriation of money for it?

39263-54-vol. 1-2

Colonel MILNE. Of course, that is a matter of policy for the Congress to decide, but to answer your specific question, Mr. Mack, there was a project, to my knowledge, authorized by the Congress a few years ago, the Lake Worth Inlet in Florida, which contained the same proviso.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSs. Well, after all, that is a risk that the city takes. Colonel MILNE. That is correct.

Mr. MACK. How does Los Angeles rank as a port?

Colonel MILNE. Twenty million tons of commerce. I will have to verify this, but I would say that it would put it within the first 10

to 15.

Mr. MACK. How much money has been expended on Los Angeles Harbor to date?

Colonel MILNE. The local interests in building terminals and dredging slips and improvements have spent about $75 million. The Federal Government in new construction has spent some $30 million with an additional $2 million for maintenance.

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Colonel.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. I would like to ask, Colonel, are these figures up to date?

Colonel MILNE. The cost figures?

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Yes.

Colonel MILNE. They are correct as of July 1, 1952.

Mr. ANGELL. Are there any other questions?

Mr. SCUDDER. Mr. Chairman, I would rather listen to the colonel's statement than ask questions. I might ask one, however. Is this project one that has been under consideration for some time?

Colonel MILNE. We have been authorized since 1946 to make this review study. The study was actually completed by the field within the past 6 to 7 months, but in their study I believe they worked about 2 years on preparing the survey reports.

Mr. SCUDDER. The project is of a type that is recommended by the engineers?

Colonel MILNE. Yes, sir. It has a very favorable benefit-cost ratio. As I remember it, it is somewhat in excess of 2 to 1.

Mr. SCUDDER. Then your recommendations are in favor of the authorization of the project?

Colonel MILNE. We have recommended the project, sir, and it is being transmitted to the Congress in the normal procedure. This particular bill is designed to authorize the project that we have reported favorably on.

As I said earlier, the Corps of Engineers does recommend favorably on this bill.

Mr. SCUDDER. Has the Bureau of the Budget recommended it? Colonel MILNE. The Bureau of the Budget concurred in our report, but on this particular bill our comments on the bill have not cleared the Bureau of the Budget.

Mr. ANGELL. Are there any further questions on my left?

(No response.)

Mr. ANGELL. On my right?

Mr. STEED. Colonel, have they had any serious accidents in the harbor already?

Colonel MILNE. I cannot answer that question specifically. I would like to say this: That with the development of the new terminal