Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Meanwhile, the application for Federal dredging assistance continued to be processed. The Secretary of the Army, after concurring with the report of the Chief of Engineers aforesaid, forwarded the same through the Department of Defense, to the Bureau of Budget for advice as to the fiscal policy of the President, which report reached that agency on March 1, 1953. On March 2, the day following, the speaker appeared personally before the representatives of the Director of the Budget, at the Executive Office of the President, accompanied by the two congressional representatives sponsoring the House bills, and thoroughly explained the proposed project to the Bureau and requested clearance in view of the approaching completion of the terminal in July. At about this same time, and in contemplation of the formal recommendation by Army authorities, the Board of Harbor Commissioners requested its representatives in the House and Senate to introduce legislation in Congress to authorize the dredging project-the bills S. 1060 dated February 23, 1953, H. R. 3054 and H. R. 3086, both dated February 16, 1953, now under consideration by your honorable committee, are the result of this request.

Now, in the intervening 4 years, from the first initiation of this request for Federal participation in what applicant feels is by no means a purely local project, the board of harbor commissioners prepared its plans and specifications for construction of the new modern terminal at berths 195-198, east basin, Los Angeles Harbor. These plans were made with the knowledge of the Army engineers and other Federal agencies, with the assumption of a favorable report by the Chief of Engineers, that the necessary dredging work would be done at Federal expense seasonably and in due time to permit access to the urgently needed terminal facility upon its completion 4 years later. The harbor board relied, under the Rivers and Harbors Act, upon governmental participation of about 10 percent of the entire cost of the contemplated improvement including structures, dredging, and relocation of sewer lines and other requirements. Construction estimates of about $5 million for the terminal were made on a rising labor and material market, and building was started.

As the building progressed, and costs increased about 60 percent, efforts were made all along the line to expedite the rendition of a report by the Army engineers, as a bill in Congress for authorization would not be received or considered before such a favorable report was forthcoming. As the time for completion of the terminal facility drew nearer and no report was rendered, the harbor board became more and more disturbed about the delay until finally, in January 1953, the speaker was sent to Washington to help expedite the matter. Numerous conferences were held with all agencies of Government having to do with the project until a favorable conclusion of the problem seemed at hand. After months of effort, the speaker reported to his board that there was a precedent established in the Florida case for proceeding with dredging with local funds earmarked for other purposes, with authority for reimbursement later should Congress so provide. The harbor board, realizing that unless dredging was started by the middle of April 1953, the local taxpayers would soon have a large terminal structure on their hands, completed and ready for operation, that could not be utilized for the purpose for which it was constructed unless the necessary dredging of the east basin adjacent to the terminal was accomplished before the opening date in July 1953. Time was of the essence and public funds were involved. The expense of maintaining an idle facility, loss of revenue and cargo tonnage due to the inability of large vessels to negotiate the narrow 35-foot channel alongside the terminal, etc., would be prohibitive. After all, the delay encountered was not the fault of the harbor board but the public and national interest demanded that the terminal be put in operation forthwith. There was only one practical solution to the problem for the benefit of the taxpayers and that was the action the harbor board decided to take. At its meeting of March 10, 1953, bids were requested for dredging in accordance with plans prepared by the Army engineers and a contract was let for work to begin after April 1, 1953, at a favorable figure. Only about 60 percent of the recommended dredging permitting minimum access to the terminal was contracted for by local interests in the amount of $457,000 due to lack of funds, but the balance of the work can be completed at a lower unit cost on a volume basis. Work commenced April 17, 1953, and the portion now contracted for will be completed by July 11, 1953, in time to permit using the terminal on its opening date.

Representatives of the United States district engineer visited the site and observed soundings being made before dredging started under authority of the Chief of Engineers and soundings will be taken upon completion of the

dredging work in order to determine that the work has been accomplished in accordance with Army requirements. In addition to this, the Chief of Engineers, Maj. Gen. Samuel D. Sturgis, CEC, personally visited the site and inspected the work under way on or about May 15, 1953.

Applicant is now in the position of being bound on a contract to pay the reasonable cost of a portion of the entire dredging that is felt to be the obligation of the Federal Government, and has acted in good faith in reliance upon a practice long established by the Federal Government and upon adequate legislative precedent to provide sufficient channel depth and width to take care of the necessary requirements of deep-water traffic. As a practical matter, a favorable recommendation by the Chief of Engineers has heretofore invariably resulted in Federal dredging projects being authorized at some time in the future and this one is urgently needed now. Applicant has not sought to take undue advantage of the situation presented, but feels that this dredging project is for the benefit of shipping of the United States as a whole and the Federal Government benefits by it as well as world commerce, and someone had to take the initiative in order to get it started. Federal interest is reflected in increased customs revenues and the military value of the terminal, etc. We realize the necessity for the fiscal policy of the present administration to reduce the budget and practice and preach economy and have noted current press reports to the effect that navigation, flood control, and other civil functions of the Army have been greatly reduced by the Appropriations Committee of the House; that generally, funds are not being provided to start new projects and that even pleas for money to continue work on some projects already under way have been rejected. However, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee of the House, Representative Taber, recently announced:

"The committee is determined to eliminate all nonessential spending. At the same time we have tried to provide for the necessary requirements of the Government and to meet our responsibility. We hope to carry out that practice right straight through to the end of the session."

In line with that declaration applicant points out that this is not a new project-it really started with the beginning of terminal construction 4 years ago. In accordance wih Congressman Taber's statement, we say that the Government should now meet this responsibility by authorizing this project in accordance with the chief of engineer's report. If this legislation is adopted, the present favorable contract which local interests have negotiated can be extended to complete the entire dredging project on the descending cost scale presently available and without taking up and later relaying the spoil disposal pipeline which would save the Federal Government many thousands of dollars and at the same time provide for reimbursement to local interests for expenditures necessarily incurred. If funds appropriated for this project went into the general rivers and harbors appropriation for such improvements all over the country, such as we understand is the usual practice under omnibus bill procedure, this project could conceivably be delayed many more years. Applicant is not asking for any priority here but is willing to take its turn for reimbursement, after being covered adequately by proper legislative authorization.

Applicant does not believe that merely because local interests have undertaken the work in advance of authorization and the Federal Government may be required at some future time to reimburse such costs would necessarily give preferential treatment to this applicant or commit the United States to repayment without going through the normal budgeting process. Reimbursement for work previously accomplished by local interests have heretofore been provided in authorization acts, and if the normal budgeting process were to be carried to its logical conclusion here this urgently needed terminal might well be sitting on the bank completed and idle for another 4 years awaiting the conclusion of the process, to the detriment of the public welfare, national as well as local. Certainly, an economy program does not necessarily mean to cut off at the pockets every much needed, worthy public project that already represents a substantial investment to the taxpayer, because such a program does not always result in economy. The amount to be authorized here is small compared to other projects that are being approved and is within the sum customarily referred to the Consent Calendar. The instant case does not establish a precedent that would open the door to abuse because the precedent for reimbursement of local interests in certain cases has already been established and Congress still has complete control of the expenditures by simply denying authorization to those projects that are without merit.

39263-54-vol. 1-5

Applicant therefore urges your honorable subcommittee to report the bills now before it to the full Committee on Public Works without further modification and recommend that the same do pass.

Respectfully submitted.

MAY 26, 1953.

BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS,
CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

By C. N. PERKINS, Attorney.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Mr. Chairman, I would like permission to insert in the record the letter of Senator Kuchel that I referred to. Mr. ANGELL. Without objection, that may be inserted in the record. (The letter of Senator Kuchel is as follows:)

UNITED STATES SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,

Hon. GEORGE A. DONDERO,

Chairman, House Committee on Public Works,

June 9, 1953.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I have been informed that your committee is today considering H. R. 3054 and H. R. 3086, bills authorizing the improvement of east basin, Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor, Calif.

S. 1060, which was introduced by Senator Knowland and myself, is companion legislation to the bills now before your committee. I should like to indicate to you my full support of the measures before your committee with an appropriate amendment providing in substance that reimbursement to the city of Los Angeles shall be subject to funds being made available therefor and shall not take precedence over any other pending projects of higher priority for harbor improvement. The purpose of these bills is to authorize a dredging improvement of the east basin, Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor, Calif., in accordance with the approved report of the Chief of Engineers now in the hands of the Director of the Budget. The estimated cost of the improvement is $896,500. The bill provides that the Secretary of the Army is authorized to reimburse local interests for such work as may have been done upon this project subsequent to April 1, 1953, provided that any such work shall be approved by the Chief of Engineers and done in accordance with the project authorized.

The approved plan provides for the dredging of a shoal area in the east basin of Los Angeles Harbor covering approximately 80 acres of water varying in depth from 35 feet to about 10 feet. This shoal is situated immediately adjacent to a new terminal constructed by local funds which has already cost $8 million and by its completion date of July 1, 1953, will represent an expenditure of approximately $10 million. The terminal will be for the use of deep vessels engaged in service to Hawaii and other Pacific points and will generally handle world commerce in United States-flag vessels.

I would respectfully urge upon your committe that these bills be given your careful consideration.

Sincerely,

THOMAS H. KUCHEL

Mr. ANGELL. The committee will now go into executive session. (Whereupon, at 3 p. m., the committee went into executive session.)

RIVERS AND HARBORS OMNIBUS BILL

FRIDAY, JULY 17, 1953

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

Washington, D. C.

H. R. 353—A BILL TO PROVIDE A CHANNEL ACROSS ST. GEORGE ISLAND FROM THE GULF OF MEXICO INTO APALACHICOLA BAY, FLA.

The subcommittee met at 10 a. m. in the committee room of the House Committee on Public Works, the Honorable Homer D. Angell (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. ANGELL. The committee will come to order.

This meeting of the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors of the Public Works Committee is called for consideration of H. R. 353, a bill introduced by our colleague, Representative Sikes, of Florida. It has for its purpose:

To provide a channel across St. George Island from the Gulf of Mexico into Apalachicola Bay, Fla.

Without objection the bill will be extended at this point in the record.

(The bill is as follows:)

[H. R. 353, 83d Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To provide a channel across Saint George Island from the Gulf of Mexico into Apalachicola Bay, Florida

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of National Defense through the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army is authorized to provide a channel ten feet deep and one hundred feet wide from the ten-foot depth contour in Apalachicola Bay across Saint George Island to within three hundred feet of the Gulf shore, thence increasing in width to two hundred feet at the shore and continuing with this width to the ten-foot depth contour in the Gulf of Mexico; and protected by two rubble-mound jetties extending to the tenfoot depth contour in the Gulf, generally in accordance with the plan of the district engineer and with such modifications as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be advisable, at an estimated Federal first cost of $428,700. Mr. ANGELL. Also without objection we will place in the record at this point a letter addressed to the Honorable George A. Dondero, the chairman of the Committee on Public Works, under date of July 16, 1953, from Robert T. Stevens, the Secretary of the Army.

(The letter is as follows:)

Hon. GEORGE A. DONDERO,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works,

House of Representatives.

JULY 16, 1953.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the views of the Department of the Army concerning H. R. 353, 83d Congress, a bill to provide a channel across St. George Island from the Gulf of Mexico into Apalachicola Bay, Fla.

The Department of the Army favors the above-mentioned bill if amended in accordance with the following suggestions.

The purpose of the bill, H. R. 353, is to authorize a 10-foot channel across St. George Island from the Gulf of Mexico into Apalachicola Bay and protection thereof by rubble mound jetties in the gulf.

The proposed legislation is generally in accord with the report of the Chief of Engineers dated June 16, 1952, which is contained in House Document No. 557, 82d Congress. In this report, the Chief of Engineers also proposes that, at such time as the new entrance channel through St. George Island is provided, that part of the Apalachicola Bay project known as West Pass Channel be deauthorized and abandoned.

It is suggested that the bill be revised by (a) striking out the words "National Defense" in line 3, page 1, and substituting the words "the Army" to make it conform to current general legislation authorizing projects of this type; and (b) striking out the words "with such modifications as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be advisable" in lines 2 and 3, page 2, and substituting the words "the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers contained in House Document No. 557, 82d Congress."

The estimated cost to the United States for construction of the project is $428,700, with $15,000 annually thereafter for additional maintenance, based on 1950 prices.

The Bureau of the Budget advised that there would be no objection to the submission of an identical report on a companion bill, S. 1019, however, that ffice questions whether single project bills should be favorably considered since ongress has customarily taken up from time to time all project reports pending "ore it and has enacted a general river and harbor and flood-control bill. Sincerely yours,

ROBERT T. STEVENS,
Secretary of the Army.

Mr. ANGELL. We are very happy, Mr. Sikes, to have you, our colleague here. If it is agreeable with you, I will ask you to proceed as soon as we hear from the Corps of Army Engineers.

Mr. SIKES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That will be very satisfactory to us.

Mr. ANGELL. Colonel Milne, we will be happy to hear from you on this bill.

STATEMENT OF COL. W. D. MILNE, ASSISTANT CHIEF FOR CIVIL WORKS, RIVERS AND HARBORS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS-Resumed

Colonel MILNE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the bill that we are here to testify on would authorize the construction of a channel across St. George Island in Apalachicola Bay. This bill would carry out the same intent as is contained in the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers which have been published as House Document No. 557 of the 82d Congress.

The Department of the Army favors enactment of this bill, and with the permission of the chairman I would like to go into just a few details on the project itself.

Mr. ANGELL. We would be very happy to have you do that, Colonel. Colonel MILNE. I think I can best cover it, Mr. Chairman, from the

map.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »