Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

this rock breakwater out here, which would change this very dangerous place in here, which it is not, into a very safe harbor of refuge, and increase its size many times, so far as that is concerned, and make it a safe place to unload the seafood products that they bring in here. There are a lot of these boats that are seasonal fishing boats. At certain seasons they are tied up and moored. They must find some safe place for that. When you leave Oriental here, it is twenty-some miles to Beaufort. That is the next safe place you can find. And in going the other way you are going toward the Wallace Channel area that we talked about before, and Pamlico Sound.

That is just a young ocean, and a bad one at that in times of storm. So that the boats come out of Pamlico Sound and must seek a safe place. I cannot conceive of a wiser investment than that. It saves so much waste. It adds so much to the people. All they want is an opportunity to make a living. They do not want anything but just an opportunity.

Mr. ANGELL. We regret that our time is up. We are very glad to have had you with us. I do not know if there are any questions. Do any members of the committee have any questions of Mr. Barden? (No response.)

Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Congressman, do you have any additional witnesses that want to be heard?

Mr. BARDEN. No, sir. Those maps and the colonel's statement in my opinion are sufficient.

Mr. SCUDDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that Mr. Barden made a very fine statement on the necessity for these projects. I think the Army engineers also substantiated the great need for an improvement down there. As one member of the committee I was very glad to get Mr. Barden's firsthand information on the need for the development of the fishing industry in that area.

Mr. BARDEN. Thank you.

Mr. ANGELL. I think that applies to all members of the committee, and we thank you, sir.

Mr. BARDEN. Thank you. I know every foot of every one of them because I have been around them for so long.

Mr. ANGELL. The committee will stand adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 12:25 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned until 10 a. m. the following day, Wednesday, February 10, 1954.)

RIVERS AND HARBORS OMNIBUS BILL

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1954

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:05 a. m., in room 1302, New House Office Building, Hon. Homer D. Angell, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.

Mr. ANGELL. The committee will come to order and we will proceed. The other members of our committee have been notified to be here.

We had listed originally the Apalachicola Bay, Fla., Channel Across St. George Island, on which we had hearings last year. For that reason it has been stricken from the agenda for today. However, our colleague, Congressman Sikes, is here and desires to make a brief statement on that project.

APALACHICOLA BAY, FLA., CHANNEL ACROSS ST. GEORGE ISLAND

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT L. F. SIKES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA-Resumed

Mr. SIKES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, as the committee knows, we had a thorough and complete hearing on the proposed St. George Island cut in June of last year, during the first session of the present Congress. At that time the necessity for that project was emphasized as strongly as we could. It is of prime importance to the entire area and a project which will, within a short time, become additionally essential because of the fact that the great Chattahoochee, Apalachicola and Flint Waterway will have been substantially completed and will be in active use by river traffic.

Because of that fact that this project was presented last year it was agreed after discussions with the committee chairman and members of the committee's staff that it would not be necessary to repeat the presentation, but I do want to take this opportunity to assure the chairman that we do have witnesses here in the event the committee feels that additional information is desired. Otherwise we will not impose further on the time of the committee on that project, except to reiterate that it is a matter of primary importance to the area. Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, Mr. Sikes. The committee will take the matter into consideration.

Are there any questions?

Mr. STEED. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Steed has a question.

Mr. STEED. I wanted for the sake of the record to ask Colonel Milne if there has been any change in the cost figures that were given in the original hearings between then and now?

Mr. ANGELL. You may supply that for the record later, if you wish, Colonel.

STATEMENT OF COL. W. D. MILNE, CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY-Resumed

Colonel MILNE. I could do it now, sir, if
Mr. ANGELL. All right, Colonel.

you

would like me to.

Colonel MILNE. The original cost of the project that Congressman Sikes has described was estimated at a Federal charge of $428,700, and a non-Federal charge of $3,000, for a grand total of $431,700. Those costs revised to the fall of 1953 show a Federal cost of $635,700 and a non-Federal cost of $3,000.

The annual charges based on that revised cost are $43,300, and the benefit-cost ratio as revised is 1.09 to 1.

Mr. ANGELL. Have you any further questions, Mr. Steed?
Mr. STEED. No, that is all.

Mr. ANGELL. I also have a letter from Senator Holland of Florida addressed to the chairman of our committee with reference to this project in which he gives his unqualified endorsement of the project. Without objection, I will ask that this letter be incorporated in the record at this point.

I will also ask that these proceedings with reference to that project be incorporated in the record at the place where the original hearings were held.

(The letter from Senator Holland is as follows:)

Honorable GEORGE A. DONDERO,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

FEBRUARY 8, 1954.

MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: You will recall that I filed a statement with your committee in the last session of Congress urging favorable consideration of the project which would provide a channel across St. George Island from the Gulf of Mexico into Appalachicola Bay, Fla.

It is my understanding that hearings will be held again on this project on February 10, 1954. I will not further burden the record by filing an additional statement, but I do want to reiterate my strong request for favorable action by your committee on this project which will be such a tremendous asset to the seafood industry in that area.

With kind regards, I remain
Yours faithfully,

SPESSARD L. HOLLAND.

Mr. STEED. Mr. Chairman, does Congressman Sikes have any constituents here who have any statements they want to make for the record in regard to this project?

Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Sikes, do you have any such witnesses here? Mr. SIKES. There will be no additional statements at this time, unless the committee desires to have further information than that previously submitted.

Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, sir.

That will be all then on that project and we will proceed to the

next one.

APALACHICOLA BAY, FLA.

Mr. ANGELL. The first project the committee will consider this morning is Apalachicola Bay, Fla., in which our colleague, Congressman Sikes, is also interested. If it is agreeable to you and the other members of the committee we will first have the report of the Army Engineers.

Mr. SIKES. That is certainly satisfactory, sir.

Mr. ANGELL. Colonel Milne, you may make your report at this time, if you will, please.

Colonel MILNE. The project for Apalachicola Bay, Fla., is described in House Document No. 156 of the 82d Congress, first session, as authorized by the River and Harbor Act of July 24, 1946.

Apalachicola Bay is a large body of water off the west coast of Florida. The city of Apalachicola is primarily dependent for its livelihood upon the fishing industry.

The existing Federal projects in Apalachicola Bay consist of a channel 12 feet in depth and 125 feet wide, which is really the Intracoastal Waterway running through Apalachicola Bay and to the city of Apalachicola.

In addition to that project there is an east pass between St. George Island and Dog Island, with a channel 9 feet in depth and 100 feet wide; and a channel 10 feet in depth and 150 feet wide called the west pass between St. Vincent Island and St. George Island.

As the committee knows, last year we discussed the provision of an entrance channel across St. George Island. The report we are considering today covers a channel at Eastpoint and the provision of a shelter area at Apalachicola.

On the existing channels there were some 15,000 tons of local commerce handled in 1951. I am not counting the very sizable volume of commerce that was carried on the Intracoastal Waterway. The 15,000 tons was local traffic destined for Apalachicola and consisted of seafood products and shell.

Local interests have indicated considerable difficulty in navigating at Eastpoint due to the fact that there is no deep water adjacent to that community; the result being the fishing fleet has to anchor some several thousand feet offshore and then transship their products to the processing plants in Eastpoint.

A second difficulty lies in the fact that there is no provision at Apalachicola for a mooring or shelter area for the large number of boats that are based there. That causes considerable difficulty during periods of storm.

The Chief of Engineers, after investigating the requests of local interests has come to the conclusion that a modification of the existing project is economically feasible. He recommends that provision be made for a channel some 6 feet in depth and 100 feet wide, roughly parallel to the shoreline of Eastpoint and extending for 6,000 feet, with an entrance channel from water of that depth in Apalachicola Bay.

He also recommends that provision be made for a channel and turning basin in Apalachicola; the channel to be 9 feet in depth and 80 feet wide, and the turning basin to be 500 feet square.

Those recommendations of the Chief of Engineers have been furnished to the State of Florida and were concurred in. Likewise, the Bureau of the Budget indicated that they have no objection to the submission of this project to the Congress.

Based on the original cost estimate as contained in the House document, the Eastpoint project has a Federal cost of $51,600, and a nonFederal cost of $1,500, a total cost of $53,100. The project for Apalachicola has a Federal cost of $37,200 and a non-Federal cost of $8,500, a grand total of $45,700.

Those costs revised to the fall of 1953 show for Eastpoint a Federal cost of $58,000, and a non-Federal cost of $1,800, or a total of $59,800.

For Apalachicola there is a Federal cost of $40,000 and a non-Federal cost of $10,700, for a total cost of $50,700.

Based on those revised costs the annual charges are estimated to be $7,760 for Eastpoint, and $4,940 for Apalachicola.

Again based on the revised costs the benefit-cost ratio for the Eastpoint project is 1.75 to 1 and for the Apalachicola project it is 1.46 to 1. Local cooperation required for Eastpoint will be to provide and maintain the necessary slips and hold and save the Federal Government free from damages. For Apalachicola it will be the furnishing of lands, easements and rights of way, and spoil disposal areas for construction and maintenance; hold and save the Federal Government free from damages; provide an adequate mooring slip and public landings with suitable utilities and supply facilities open to all, including public parking area and access roads; and the necessary bulkheads and slips for local boats; establish a competent and properly constituted public body empowered to regulate the use, growth and free development of the harbor facilities.

Local interests in both cases have indicated a willingness to comply with the terms of local cooperation.

At Eastpoint, Mr. Chairman, there are approximately 55 fishing vessels that are based there the year round. Due to the inadequate depth those fishing vessels must anchor several thousand feet offshore. Then they transfer their fish catch to shallow-draft vessels and bring them in to the processing plants at Eastpoint. That has resulted in considerable delay to the fishing fleet. We have estimated that those delays average two hours for each trip. Those delays translated into dollars and cents represent a sizable figure in money that is lost each

year.

We have estimated that the benefits that would accrue as a result of the recommended improvement would be more than sufficient to justify the provision of a Federal channel at that particular point.

I might say that Apalachicola is one of the largest fishing centers in the State of Florida. Over 350 boats utilize that area generally throughout the entire year. With that large number of boats it has become a serious problem as to where they can be moored to lessen the damages that may occur during storms; and also to avoid congestion and to permit the fishing fleet to get in and out of the harbor with some degree of facility.

The annual damages to the fishing fleet at Apalachicola are estimated at not less than $25 a year for each of the 350 vessels. By the provision of this turning basin some 500 feet square a great number of

« ÎnapoiContinuă »