The Weymouth Fore River rises in Braintree, Mass., and flows approximately 8 miles north and empties into Hingham Bay, which is on the south side of Boston Harbor.

The area that the Weymouth Fore River taps is predominantly one devoted to manufacturing. It has a variety of industry, with such things as shipbuilding, hydroelectric plants, coal and petroleum distribution, and the manufacturing of soaps to mention a few.

The existing Federal project for Weymouth Fore provides for a channel 27 feet in depth between Nut Island and Peddocks Island, and 300 feet wide; a channel 27 feet in depth and 300 feet wide in the Weymouth Fore River, extending to just upstream of the Fore River bridge; and a 27-foot by 400-foot channel through the Nantasket Gut. The Nantasket Gut portion of the project has not been completed. It is authorized but Federal funds have not been appropriated for its construction. The West Gut channel has been completed, as has the channel in the Weymouth Fore River.

In the year 1952 over 2 million tons of commerce was handled on this improved waterway. That commerce was predominantly petroleum and some building products.

Local interests have indicated that due to the relatively narrow width of the channel and the shallow depth that they are having considerable difficulty in navigating it with the modern T-2 and T-3 type tankers. They must lighter the cargoes and wait for favorable conditions of tide to get into the terminals at the upstream end of the Weymouth Fore.

They have requested as a result of these difficulties that consideration be given to improving the project, and have recommended that we investigate a channel depth of 30 or 35 feet, widening of the channel and provision for a turning basin at the upstream end.

The Chief of Engineers has made a detailed study of the area. He examined the possibility of a 35-foot channel, but came to the conclusion that it was not economically justified. He did believe, however, that an improvement to the existing project was justified and he recommends that the project be modified to provide for a channel 30 feet in depth and 500 feet wide through Nantasket Gut, and tapering down to a channel 300 feet wide and 30 feet deep up the Weymouth Fore River to the head of the existing navigation project; and that the existing turning basin be widened and deepened to 24 feet.

Those recommendations have been furnished to the State of Massachusetts and they have indicated that while they would have preferred a 35-foot channel they feel that a 30-foot channel would be so much superior to what they now have that they concur with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers.

These recommendations were furnished to the Bureau of the Budget and they indicated that they have no objection to transmitting the report to the Congress.

Based on the costs as contained in the House document we show a Federal cost of $3,412,055, and a non-Federal cost of $50,680.

Those costs, revised to the fall of 1953 show a Federal cost of $4,400,000 and a non-Federal cost of $64,400, for a total of $4,464,400.

Based on the revised costs the annual charges are estimated to be $158,980. The increased maintenance due to the recommended improvement would be very small. It is in the neighborhood of $500,

Again based on the revised costs, the benefit-cost ratio is 3.0 to 1. Local cooperation required would be to provide for the cost of altering the submarine cable crossings and other obstructive structures not owned by the United States; and hold and save the United States free from damages due to construction and maintenance.

Local interests have indicated a willingness to comply with those terms of local cooperation.

Due to the lack of depth in the existing Weymouth Fore River channel it is necessary for the T-2 and T-3 type tankers to come in under a reduced load. In most of these cases tankers proceed to Boston where they lighter, and then will come in to Weymouth Fore with a reduced load. Also, of course, they must wait on periods of favorable tide to enter the Weymouth Fore River.

We have estimated that these delays average something in excess of three hours per vessel trip.

The provision of a 30-foot channel would eliminate a great portion of these delays. It would not reduce them entirely because they would still have to wait for favorable tide, but they would not have to lighter their vessel. We estimate the average delay would be reduced from three hours to just over one hour.

Based on the reduction in delays and what we consider an average prospective commerce over the life of the project, we believe that the project is well justified and we recommend that it be modified to provide for a channel 30 feet in lieu of the existing 27-foot channel. Mr. ANGELL. Will you give me again the Federal costs revised to date?

Colonel MILNE. $4,400,000 Federal cost and a non-Federal cost of $64,400, for a total of $4,464,400.

Mr. ANGELL. Are there any cash contributions in the $64,400? Colonel MILNE. No, sir. That would be local interests costs in removing submarine cables and other obstructive crossings.

Mr. NEAL. Colonel, in areas like this the annual cost following improvements of this kind is largely due to dredging. Is that right? Colonel MILNE. No, sir. The annual costs I have given you of $158,980 represent an amortization of the initial investment, that, is of the initial $4 million. Of the annual costs of $158,980, only a very small part is maintenance. It is something like $500. The remainder is an amortization and interest charge against the initial Federal investment.

Mr. NEAL. Then it is not to be presumed that these channels are apt to fill up readily?

Colonel MILNE. Experience in this particular channel would indicate maintenance would be very nominal.

Mr. NEAL. Very small in that respect?

Colonel MILNE. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANGELL. Are there any other questions of Colonel Milne? (No response.)

Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, Colonel.

Our colleague, Congressman McCormack, is interested in this project. Unfortunately, he has other engagements which does not permit him to testify at this time.

Without objection, his statement will be incorporated in the record at this point:

(The statement of representative John W. McCormack is as follows:)

Hon. GEORGE A. DONDERO,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works,

WASHINGTON, February 23, 1954.

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR CHAIRMAN DONDERO: In relation to the Weymouth Fore River project, which I understand has been favorably reported by the United States Army engineers, and which I understand comes up before your committee on Wednesday, I desire to place myself on record as favoring this project and to respectfully and sincerely urge you and the Members of your Committee to report it favorably either in a separate bill, or in any omnibus bill your committee might report in the future. I will appreciate it very much if you will include my letter as part of the record and the printed hearings.

With kind regards, I am

Sincerely yours,

JOHN W. MCCORMACK.

Mr. ANGELL. Are there any further questions or any further witnesses on this project?

(No response.)

Mr. ANGELL. If not, we will proceed with the next project.

The statement of Mr. Greene on the Weymouth Fore River project may be inserted in the record.

(The document referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PROJECT FOR DEEPENING WEYMOUTH FORE RIVER, MASS.

The existing project for Weymouth Fore River, Mass., provided for a channel 27 feet deep with a general width of 300 feet from a point in Hingham Bay between Nut and Peddocks Island to the Weymouth Fore Bridge; a channel in Nantasket Gut, 27 feet deep and 400 feet wide, extending from deep water in Nantasket Roads to Hingham Bay, thence through Hingham Bay 27 feet deep and 300 feet wide for a distance of 1.4 miles to deep water in Weymouth Fore River west of Sheep Island; and extension of the 27-foot channel so as to include the present 27-foot State-improved channel through and above the Weymouth Fore River Bridge, providing a combined channel and maneuvering basin of the same depth, with a length of about 2,500 feet and widths varying from 470 to 900 feet.

At a public hearing held on June 27, 1947, the American Merchant Marine Institute requested deepening of the channel from 27 feet to 30 or 35 feet with the 30-foot depth to be adopted until the greater depth was justified by increasing commerce. The benefits which would be realized from improvement of the project channel are those which would accrue through use of the larger vessels, which would be derived by reduction in surcharge, reduction in delays due to tidal fluctuation, and the savings due to elimination of lightering.

In subsequent letter to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, the American Merchant Marine Institute urged favorable consideration of the Division Engineer's findings for a 35-foot channel with a benefit-cost ratio of 1.6, by indicating the trend in vessel construction and assuring the predicted regular use of the waterway by the larger tankers.

Although desirous of the 35-foot project depth, the American Merchant Marine Institute, Inc., fully endorses the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers for modification of the existing project for Weymouth Fore River, Mass., to provide for a channel 32 feet deep in rock, 30 feet deep in other material, and 500 feet wide from deep water in Boston Harbor along the southerly half of the Narrows Channel in Nantasket Roads and through Nantasket Gut, thence of the same depths and generally 300 feet wide across Hingham Bay and into Weymouth Fore River to Weymouth Fore River Bridge, following the general alinement of the existing project channel, and extending through and above the bridge to form a maneuvering basin 470 to 650 feet wide.

HUDSON RIVER, N. Y.

Mr. ANGELL. We will take up the next project, which is the Hudson River, N. Y., project, House Document 228 of the 83d Congress. Colonel MILNE, we will be glad to hear you on that.

Mr. BECKER. Mr. Chairman, this is in the Hudson River project. Mr. ANGELL. That is right.

Mr. BECKER. The Hudson River is the finest valley in the country. I have a telegram here from Harold Keller, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Commerce, which I would like to enter in the record.

Mr. ANGELL. It may be received.

(The telegram referred to is as follows:)

Hon. FRANK J. BECKER,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.

ALBANY, N. Y., February 23, 1954.

Following is the text of a telegram I have today sent to the Honorable Homer Angell, chairman, subcommittee on rivers and harbors. With respect to the proposal to deepen the Hudson River between New York and Albany.

"The deepening of the Hudson River Channel as currently proposed by the Corps of Engineers will result in definite benefits not only to New York State but to the entire country for the following reasons:

"1. The Hudson River is a natural tidal waterway, and, in essence an extension of the port of New York as such. It is an integral part of the transportation system of New York State.

"2. The river serves today and could be of far greater importance as a connecting link with the immense industrial and agricultural areas of the Midwest. Its deepening improvement, and maintenance would result in lower transportation costs in moving goods from and to the interior of the United States.

"3. The existing depth of the channel in the Hudson River requires that many vessels discharge a portion of their cargo at the port of New York before proceeding to the port of Albany.

"4. On the east and west banks of this waterway, extending about 150 miles, are potential sites for industrial expansion and development. Therefore, the deepening of the river would make possible a healthy development of the industries which consume large quantities of imported raw materials and which would serve the entire Northeast.

"5. A deeper channel which would permit the larger modern type vessels to go directly to Albany without the expense and delay of discharging part of their cargo at New York would in the event of a national emergency expand our transport facilities and assist in the movement of supplies and essential materials for the Armed Forces. It would also be of great value in the strategic dispersion of docking and port facilities.

"These advantages were indicated in a letter from me to the New York district engineer, and this letter was made a part of his report to the Chief of Engineers in Washington. The Chief of Engineers subsequently referred the matter to Governor Dewey for approval and approval was granted early in 1953. "Because of the importance of the proposed project to the economic development of New York State, I urge that your committee recommend favorable action on the deepening of the Hudson River Channel."

HAROLD KELLER,

Commissioner, New York State Department of Commerce. Mr. ANGELL. I may state also that I understand this project is in the congressional district of our colleague, Dean Taylor of New York. Is the Congressman present?

I understand he has been detained but he is coming and will be here a little later.

I should mention our colleagues, the Honorable Leo W. O'Brien of New York and the Honorable Michael Powers of New York desire to be heard on this project. Are they present?

(No response.)

Mr. ANGELL. Very well. You may proceed with your statement, Colonel.

Colonel MILNE. Mr. Chairman, the report on Hudson River, N. Y., is contained in House Document No. 228 of the 83d Congress, 1st session, as authorized by a resolution of the River and Harbor Committee dated March 2, 1945.

The Hudson River rises in the northeastern part of the State of New York and flows some 300 miles south across the State of New York and empties into New York Bay. The area that is tapped by the Hudson River encompasses both agriculture and industry.

The existing Federal project and I would like to point out we are only talking about the Hudson River above the city limits of New York-the existing Federal project calls for a channel 27 feet in depth and 300 feet wide from just above the city limits of New York, extending to Albany; beyond Albany the channel is 14 feet in depth and 400 feet wide to Troy. Of course, beyond Troy you enter the New York State Barge Canal, one arm of which goes toward Lake Erie and the other arm goes to Lake Champlain, with access to the St. Lawrence.

On this improved Federal project in the year 1952 over 18 million tons of commerce were transported. The commerce was largely petroleum, grain, building materials, coal, and other products. Specifically, of the 18 million tons over 6 million went to the port of Albany itself.

Local interests have indicated that due to the lack of depth in the channel they are having extreme difficulty in navigating with modern vessels. I would like to point out to the committee that the Hudson River from the city of New York to Albany is not an artificial channel in the sense that we must dredge it over its entire length to maintain a depth of 27 feet. On the contrary, the greater part of that distance, which is about 150 miles, has a natural depth of 33 feet or more. There are only a relatively few areas that must be maintained by dredging.

Because of the lack of depth, narrow width, and the lack of turning basins local interests have requested consideration be given to a modification of the project. They have suggested that a deeper channel would be extremely desirable. They have also asked for turning basins along the route of the Hudson River, and finally that consideration be given to the improvement of the 14-foot channel to Troy.

Mr. ANGELL. What is the controlling depth at the present time? Colonel MILNE. 27 feet, sir.

The Chief of Engineers has investigated the area very thoroughly and has looked into the possibility of providing depths greater than 27 feet. He has considered 35-foot depths and less, and he has come to the conclusion that the most economical modification for this project would be providing a channel 32 feet in depth in soft material and 34 feet in rock, with a channel width of 600 feet from New York City to Kingston, and then narrowing to 400 feet from Kingston to Albany.

He does not recommend any deepening of the channel above Albany. He also recommends that provision be made for increasing the width of the existing turning basin just below the Rensselaer Bridge at Albany, and furthermore recommends that small turning basins be provided at two points along the route of the river between New York and Albany.