Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

nearly $1 million worth of shrimp in this fishery in about 6 weeks, and that certainly was not taken into consideration when this report was made about a year and a half ago. This industry constitutes an additional argument for the channel.

I would like to point out one more thing. Our report was a recent one. It is not one that has been lying on the shelf, pigeonholed for a great number of years. Our costs are based on recent costs, as well as the prices we get for shrimp and fish.

The sport-fishing business was mentioned awhile ago. That was not taken into consideration when the report was made. If we had been allowed to put in the additional benefits derived from sport fishing, I think we could have shown project benefits to be greater than they now appear.

The urgency of this project to the economy of our area has caused us to leave no stone unturned in our effort to secure the channel at the earliest possible time. The passage of the authorization bill will permit the United States Engineers to accept contributions from local interests with which to perform the dredging according to their plans and specifications and under their supervision; and also funds to provide any maintenance which may be necessary until an appropriation is made by the Congress, and until the project is taken over by the United States Government. We feel that this plan will allow us the use of the channel, possibly several years earlier than otherwise and, consequently, strengthen our economy. There will be resultant greater benefits to the Government.

Gentlemen, there is one more point I would like to make, briefly.
Mr. ANGELL. Our time is rapidly getting away from us.
Mr. CREEKMORE. Yes, sir. I will stop very soon.

This [indicating] is a map which was furnished us by our very efficient Corps of Engineers at Mobile. Here [indicating] is the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River system. Here is the location of the dams approved by this Congress, two or which are now under construction [indicating].

Here is Apalachicola [indicating]. We are located at the mouth of this river system. Years ago we were one of the biggest ports on the Gulf of Mexico. We have dried up because we have not had an opportunity to continue our commerce as it was started. This project will put us back in business.

The approval of this project by the engineers is not based on the fact that we expect a great amount of tonnage up the river when the Apalachicola waterway is completed. It is approved on the basis that we have local tonnage of seafood to justify it right now. We need this project very much and we earnesty request your support. That concludes my remarks.

Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, Mr. Creekmore.

I hope the questions by members of the committee will be brief, because we are presumed at 11 o'clock to take up the next hearing on Portsmouth Harbor.

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, we have two additional witnesses who will not need more than 10 minutes. If the committee is reluctant to give that additional time, we will stop right now.

Mr. ANGELL. May I suggest that they submit their statements, and then they can file amended statements.

Mr. SIKES. If that is the desire of the committee, we will be glad to do so.

Mr. ANGELL. It is now 11 o'clock, and Congressman Merrow is here with his witnesses on Portsmouth Harbor.

Mr. SIKES. I would like to present these two remaining witnesses and suggest that they make their statements as brief as possible because of the committee's crowded schedule, and elaborate their statements for the record.

Mr. ANGELL. Then that will be the order of procedure.

Mr. SIKES. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to present Florida State Representative and former Legion department commander, the Honorable Bryant Patton.

STATEMENT OF HON. BRYANT PATTON, STATE REPRESENTATIVE, FLORIDA

Mr. PATTON. Mr. Chairman, I will put my statement in the record in just a moment, if you will permit.

One thing I would like to point out, if I may, is I am one of the owners of St. George Island, and we are developing it into a resort, and we are perfectly willing and already have the deeds made to give a right-of-way for the project on the island and to point out that by so doing we are cutting off 4 miles of our island project that we shall not be able to use when a bridge is built across to the main part of the island. The owners of the island are willing to do that and do it gladly to help this project.

And I want to express my appreciation to my lifelong friend, Senator Malone, and to the Florida and Georgia congressional delegations for their support of this project.

Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, Mr. Patton. We are glad to have your statement.

Mr. SIKES. Now, Mr. Chairman, as the closing witness I wish to present State Senator Bourke Floyd, former assistant attorney general for the State of Florida, present city attorney for Apalachicola and county attorney for Franklin County.

STATEMENT OF HON. BOURKE FLOYD, STATE SENATOR, FLORIDA

Mr. FLOYD. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this is the first time I have ever appeared before a congressional committee. I thank you for the privilege and appreciate your patience.

I was very interested in Congressman Scudder's theory on farm-to market roads comparable to the water system.

I have an opinion from the attorney general of Florida, based upon local legislation for the first time in our State, to show our desire to do our part in this matter, ruling that the waterway is a highway, and here is an article from the Florida Times Union which carries a story that you might be interested in [submitting].

If I may take a moment more on the expenditure side, we are not here asking for any easy ride; we are not asking for any handout. We want to do our part. We have arranged to borrow and apply on the initial cost of this project the sum of $100,000. That is the reason we want this favorable action from this committee, so that we can get busy and get the advantages we know are in this project.

I would like to point out to you that we save 20 miles by this new cut-through channel. I would like to point out just briefly that the productive fishing time per trip is 13 hours under the present system, and we would have 29 hours under the new one, considering the time of the trip and so forth. That is for shrimp fishing. For porgy fishing, we would have approximately the same. In other words, we would have a two- to three-fold increase of fishing time as a result of the 20 miles shorter distance to the fishing ground.

I think that summarizes it pretty well. We want to do our share. We need this project. We are a small community and are fighting our way and trying to work out our salvation.

We certainly appreciate your attention, and God speed you.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Would the gentleman, in the extension of his remarks, put in some argument about local contribution, cash contribution, to this project?

Mr. FLOYD. Yes, sir. We have arranged to borrow up to $100,000. On which we would seek reimbursement. We will also seek to raise as much money as we can for a direct contribution.

Mr. SIKES. Now we have with us the following gentlemen who are here in support of the project: The clerk of the court of Franklin County, Mr. George Bradford; the chairman of the board of county commissioners, Mr. Waldo Brown; and from Panama City, representing the seafood industry in northwest Florida, Mr. Ferguson Kilborne. They do not wish to make statements at this time unless further information is desired by the committee.

Mr. ANGELL. We are glad to have had you with us.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to add that I consider this the No. 1 unauthorized project in importance in northwest Florida and I believe in the State of Florida. It merits the consideration and favorable action of this committee and I earnestly hope we may have your support.

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. 4938—A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE IMPROVEMENT OF PORTSMOUTH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA RIVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE

The subcommittee thereupon proceeded to the consideration of H. R. 4938, Hon. Homer D. Angell presiding.

Mr. ANGELL. This is a meeting of the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors of the Public Works Committee for consideration of H. R. 4938, introduced by our colleague, Mr. Merrow, a bill to authorize the improvement of Portsmouth Harbor and the Piscataqua River, N. H., and for other purposes.

Without objection, the bill will be extended in the record at this point and also a letter to our chairman, Mr. Dondero, from Mr. Stevens, Secretary of the Army.

(The matters above referred to are as follows:)

[H. R. 4938, 83d Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To authorize the improvement of Portsmouth Harbor and the Piscataqua River New Hampshire, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) the project for the improvement of the Portsmouth Harbor and the Piscataqua River, in the State of New Hampshire, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in a report made upon the preliminary examination and survey thereon.

(b) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be required for the prosecution of such project.

JUNE 26, 1953.

Hon. GEORGE A. DONDERO,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works,

House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request to the Secretary of Defense for the views of the Department of Defense concerning H. R. 4938, 83d Congress, a bill to authorize the improvement of Portsmouth Harbor and the Piscataqua River, N. H., and for other purposes. The Secretary of Defense has delegated to the Department of the Army the responsibility for expressing the views of the Department of Defense.

The Department of the Army favors the above-mentioned bill.

The purpose of the bill, H. R. 4938, is to authorize the improvement of Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River in New Hampshire to provide for the removal of ledge rock in the vicinity of Gangway Rock, the southwest point of Badgers Island, and Boiling Rock, to 35 feet below mean low water, subject to

certain conditions of local cooperation, in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers, which are contained in House Document No. 556, 82d Congress. The bill would also authorize the appropriation of necessary funds for the project.

The existing Corps of Engineers' project is for Portsmouth Harbor only and is the original project authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1879 and modified in 1890. It provides for a stone breakwater extending from Goat Island to New Castle Island, the removal of ledge rock at Gangway Rock to 20 feet below mean low water and at Badgers Island to a depth of 18 feet and Pier Rock to a depth of 12 feet. Work on the authorized project was completed in 1892. Work has never been authorized in the Piscataqua River above Portsmouth Harbor. The proposed improvement is considered to be justified both by monetary benefits and in the interest of increased safety and convenience to established navigation. The Department of the Navy advises that it considers Gangway Rock a hazard to naval vessels, and its removal to the recommended depth is desirable.

It is suggested that, before the bill is enacted, the following change be made: In lines 6, 7 and 8, eliminate the language "a report made upon the preliminary examination and survey thereon" and insert "House Document No. 556, 82d Congress."

The present estimated cost to the United States is $912,000, of which $880,000 is for the rock removal and $32,000 is for aids for navigation. The only Federal annual maintenance cost would be that for aids to navigation, estimated at $650. The Bureau of the Budget advised that there would be no objection to the submission of a similar report on a companion bill, S. 198, but that office questions whether single project bills should be favorably considered since Congress has customarily taken up from time to time all project reports pending before it and has enacted a general river and harbor and flood control bill.

Sincerely yours,

ROBERT T. STEVENS,
Secretary of the Army.

Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Merrow, we are glad to have you here and will be happy to hear you at this time but before you proceed, perhaps it might be well to have Colonel Milne of the Corps of Engineers make

a statement.

Mr. MERROW. That is very agreeable to me, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ANGELL. Colonel Milne, will you make your statement at this time?

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

Colonel MILNE. Mr. Chairman, the bill under consideration, H. R. 4938, is to authorize certain improvements at Portsmouth Harbor. Those improvements have been considered by the Corps of Engineers in a regular survey report, and we have submitted to the Congress, which has now been published as House Document No. 556 of the 82d Congress, our recommendations for the improvement of Portsmouth Harbor. This bill would authorize those recommendations. The Department of the Army favors the bill in question.

With your permission, I would like to go to the map and explain the project.

Mr. ANGELL. We would be glad to have you do that.

Colonel MILNE. Portsmouth Harbor is just 50 miles north and east. of Boston and approximately 40 miles south and west of Portland. The harbor itself is a natural harbor, the channel from the ocean extending in this direction [indicating] with natural depths as much as 70 feet and ample water up to 40 feet.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »