costs, including the multiple-purpose projects on large rivers and waterways. In one instance the Panama Canal we do charge tolls, but that is an international service. In all of the river and harbor developments there is no charge imposed on the users of the project. I presume one reason for that is that they are so diversified and the users come from all points of the compass, that it is almost imposible to impose a charge that would be equitable and meet the situation. That is my personal view of it.

Mr. LYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen.

Mr. ANGELL. There is one other witness we have listed here, Mr. Duane Orr of Corpus Christi, Tex.

Mr. MILLER. No, sir. He has left. He did not feel his appearance would be required.

Mr. ANGELL. Do you have any other witnesses?

Mr LYLE. No, sir. Thank you.

Mr. ANGELL. We have Mr. Martin Dies listed here as a witness. Mr. LYLE. He represents the State-at-large and he was not here this morning.

Mr. ANGELL. Without objection, Mr. Dies will be given the right to include a statement in the record, if he so desires.

We have a letter from Winfield S. Hamlin of Port Aransas, Tex., in opposition to this project. Without objection it will be inserted in the record at this point.

THE CHAIRMAN,

House Public Works Committee,

PORT ARANSAS, TEX., March 26, 1954.

United States Congress, Washington, D. C.

HONORABLE SIR: As a businessman and taxpayer of Port Aransas, Tex., I wish to protest and oppose the proposed Turtle Cove project at Port Arkansas, Tex., covering the dredging for an anchorage 12 feet deep by 300 feet, on the following grounds:

(a) The project is for the purpose of developing private property, opening a channel to private boathouses for pleasure craft only and a commercial project for renting skiffs and outboard motors to transient tourists; other facilities for this latter purposes are now available at Port Aransas.

(b) The proposed location is wide open to the elements; no seawalls are proposed and the anchor hasn't been manufactured that would hold on this bottom in a hurricane or even a 50-mile gale.

(c) At least 300 feet of anchor rope is required to hold a 60 foot commercial fishing boat in a 40-mile wind, and allowing for a swing through a 180° arc, the proposed project would not accommodate a single craft and therefore would be of no value to commercial fishermen.

(d) There are no commercial fishing boats at Port Aransas, such craft as are maintained there are 26- to 36-foot charter boats for sport fishing and are always hauled out and secured ashore during actual hurricane conditions or warnings thereof.

The United States Engineers are compentent as to feasibility of such enterprise but not competent as to necessity. The United States Coast Guard, responsible for the safety of vessels, would be the final authority as to safeguard this proposed channel would afford craft during storm conditions.

Respectfully,

WINFIELD S. HAMLIN.

Colonel MILNE. May I make a statement off the record, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. ANGELL. You may, colonel.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. ANGELL. Colonel Milne, we do understand that you are about to leave in order to resume your official duties which you left for the

purpose of making these presentations before this Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors. May I say as chairman of the subcommittee that the subcommittee feels very much indebted to you for the very fine presentations you have made of these projects and the very helpful consideration you have given to the committee.

In all my service on the committee I doubt if we have every had an officer who was more cooperative and who understood his job better, and who was more deserving of a commendation from this committee than you. I certainly want to wish you on behalf of myself and the committee Godspeed and good luck in your new assignment.

Colonel MILNE. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. MACK. Colonel Milne, I join completely in the statements made by our chairman.

Mr. BECKER. And I echo them also.

Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, Colonel Milne.

If there is nothing further, the committee will stand adjourned. (Whereupon, at 11: 15 a. m. the subcommittee adjourned until 10 a. m. the following day, Thursday, March 4, 1954.)

RIVERS AND HARBORS OMNIBUS BILL

THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 1954

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS,

Washington, D. C.

in

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

Mr. ANGELL. The committee will come to order, please.

The subcommittee is meeting this morning to consider several projects in the State of Oregon along the Columbia River, as well as on the north side of the Columbia River in the State of Washington. One of the most important ones is at the mouth of the Columbia River, which is the great waterway leading to the hinterlands_comprising what was originally known as the Oregon country, involving lands in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and some additional lands in Canada.

There are two projects in southern Oregon, the Gold Beach project and the Umpqua River project, as well as another, which is on the north bank of the Columbia River. We will take up first the Gold Beach project, which appears in Senate Document 83 of the 83d Congress.

Following our usual practice we will have the Corps of Engineers' report first.

The committee is very happy to have here General Itschner, who, perhaps, of all the men engaged in this work here is more familiar with the projects on the Columbia River than any other gentleman. This is his first appearance before our committee in charge of the justification of a project, and I want to say to the general that we are most happy to welcome you here, and we know that your relationship with us will be very pleasant.

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. E. C. ITSCHNER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT CHIEF OF ENGINEERS FOR CIVIL WORKS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY-Resumed

General ITSCHNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ANGELL. If you are ready to proceed you may do so on the Gold Beach project.

ROGUE RIVER, HARBOR AT GOLD BEACH, OREG.

General ITSCHNER. The first project we have for consideration today is the Rogue River, Harbor at Gold Beach, Oreg.

This is a review report on the Rogue River in Oregon to determine whether any modification of the recommendations of the original report is advisable at the present time, with particular reference to the improvement of the harbor at Gold Beach, Oreg., requested by a resolution by the Committee on Commerce, United States Senate, adopted on July 31, 1946.

The report is published as Senate Document No. 83 of the 83d Congress, 2d session.

The Rogue River enters the Pacific Ocean in Oregon approximately 55 miles from Bandon, the nearest port to the north, and about an equal distance from the port of Crescent City, Calif., to the south. The river flows into the Pacific Ocean 264 miles south of the mouth of the Columbia River. The surrounding country is largely utilized in the production of lumber and some cattle. There is a great deal of tourist trade, because the area is very scenic.

There is no existing project on this river. It is completely undeveloped. There is no commerce on the river at the present time.

The purpose of the proposed project is to permit vessels having about 10 feet of draft to enter the harbor and take out lumber. It is estimated there will be about 52 million board-feet of lumber and logs which will produce an additional 23 million board-feet of lumber shipped out annually. In the area there is an adequate supply of timber, amounting to an estimated 4,700 million board-feet of timber. This timber is principally Douglas fir, although there is some Port Orford cedar, which is an extremely valuable type of lumber.

Another important use of the harbor will be as a harbor of refuge. It would also be used by small fishing vessels. There is a possibility of its being used as a port for the shipment of ore that might be developed in that area. However, in our economic evaluation of the project we did not consider the mining portion of it to be of value at this time. It is a possibility for future development.

As proposed, there will be two jetties, as shown on the map. A channel will be dredged between them to 13 feet of depth, 300 feet wide, from deep water in the Pacific Ocean 6,300 feet up the river to a location close to a highway bridge. A small portion of this channel would be widened for a turning basin. That would be 500 feet wide and 650 feet long.

The cost of the project would be $3,937,000. The cost of maintaining the harbor after it is completed is estimated to be $160,000 for annual dredging. There would be no local contribution.

The benefit-cost ratio would be 1.33 estimated at 1953 price levels. It is estimated that there would be approximately 119,500 tons of commerce on this river. It is also believed that there would be about 40 fishing craft permanently located in this area, and that there would be a number of others that would come there during the fishing

season.

Mr. ANGELL. General Itschner, what did you say the Federal cost is based on present prices?

General ITSCHNER. There is no project at this time on the river. The proposed project would cost a cotal of $3,937,000, of which the cost for the Federal portion would be $3,758,700 for construction and $14,500 for navigation aids to be put in by the Coast Guard.

Mr. ANGELL. That would make a total Federal cost of what? General ITSCHNER. The total Federal cost would be $3,773,200. Mr. ANGELL. Are there any questions from members of the committee?

Mr. MACK. General, how much lumber did you say this port handled?

General ITSCHNER. At the present time it handles nothing at all. Mr. MACK. What is the potential?

General ITSCHNER. The potential amount of lumber that would be shipped through this port is estimated to be about 78,000 tons. Mr. MACK. How much would that be in footage?

General ITSCHNER. In addition to that, 37,500 tons of logs. The lumber that is available in the area is about 4,700 million board-feet. Mr. MACK. I meant how much lumber will be shipped out of this port as a finished product? Did you say 600,000 feet or 600 million feet?

General ITSCHNER. No, sir.

We estimated 52 million feet of lumber. Mr. MACK. But there will be a considerable amount of logs in addition to that?

General ITSCHNER. Yes, 23 million feet of logs and plywood. Mr. MACK. Is that the only source to get that timber now?

General ITSCHNER. No, sir. It is the only water method of getting it out. It is 55 miles by water down to the nearest port. At the present time this lumber is shipped to three different ports: To Arcata, Calif., 138 miles to the south by highway, that is, by_truck; to Coquille, Oreg., 77 miles to the north by road; and to Coos Bay, Oreg., 95 miles to the north by road.

Mr. MACK. Are there any lifesaving or Coast Guard stations in that area?

General ITSCHNER. None right here. I think the nearest one is at Coos Bay.

Mr. MACK. The fishing industry is naturally a very important industry.

General ITSCHNER. The fishing industry is very important and at. the present time they have to go to the nearest ports, which are approximately 55 miles by water in either direction.

Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, General.

Are there any questions by members of the committee of General Itschner?

(No response.)

Mr. ANGELL. If not, the Chair would like to say that this project is in the district of our colleague, the Honorable Harris Ellsworth, who is with us.

General ITSCHNER. May I add just one thing? The Bureau of the Budget had a comment on this report which I feel should be read to you. I shall quote from their report:

In summary, it appears that the marginal economic justification for the improvement could readily be reduced below unity by (1) failure of local interests to make adequate capital investments in the area to insure the movement of the volume of traffic anticipated in the report, (2) appropriate consideration of the losses involved in the diversion of fishing traffic from other ports, (3) navigational difficulties involving possible temporary closures of the port due to sudden and rapid shoaling of the bar channel, or (4) an increase in the estimated annual cost of maintenance of the recognized unstable channels due