ment which he asked be submitted, and without objection that statement will be received and incorporated in the record at this point. (The statement of Delegate Bartlett is as follows:) STATEMENT OF E. L. BARTLETT, DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM ALASKA ON COPPER RIVER AND GULF COAST It is my desire to urge approval of the two projects for Alaska recommended in the "Copper River and Gulf Coast, Alaska," House Document No. 182, 83d Congress, 1st session. That report recommends improved protection for existing small boat harbors at Valdez and Seward, the recommendation at Valdez to provide for construction of a rock and gravel breakwater and a pile breakwater at an estimated cost of $97,000 for construction and $1,400 annually for maintenance, and the proposed project at Seward to provide for raising the south breakwater and construction of a pile breakwater at an estimated cost of $68,200 for construction and $1,075 for annual maintenance. It seems to me that the costs involved are small, indeed, compared with the benefits which would accrue in improving the existing small boat basins at these two Alaska ports. Seward, which lies at the head of Resurrection Bay, is connected with the interior of Alaska by road and by the Alaska Railroad. Valdez is the port for the Richardson Highway, one of the main highways of Alaska leading to Fairbanks. As the Chief of Engineers' report points out, "Small boats are essential to the fishing economy and suffer considerable storm damage and ice damage during the winter unless removed to safe anchorages or placed on grids on the beaches." Rivers and harbors projects mean much to Alaska. The economic life of the coastal towns in the Territory is founded primarily upon fishing, and fishing can prosper only as harbor conditions are provided. The berthing of small boats at both Seward and Valdez is important not only to those towns but vital to the industry of which the small boats are a part. I urge without reservation that the projects for these two Alaska communities be approved. Mr. ANGELL. General Itschner, the committee will be very glad to hear your report on this project in Alaska at this time. 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. Mr. Chairman, it is a great honor for me to follow the Governor of Alaska and my friend of 25 years. He knows so much more about this project and about Alaska than I do. In fact, I do not think anybody in Alaska knows more about the country than Governor B. Frank Heintzleman. Mr. ANGELL. May I interrupt at the beginning? The Governor mentioned two projects. However, we have listed on the agenda only one, which is the Copper River. What is the other project to which the Governor referred? General ITSCHNER. The Copper River project is the overall project, and these two small-boat harbors are a portion of the overall study. Mr. ANGELL. And they are what is designated here as the Copper River project in House Document 182? General ITSCHNER. Yes, sir. Mr. ANGELL. You may proceed. General ITSCHNER. This report is on Copper River and Gulf Coast, Alaska. It is an interim report submitted under the authority for a preliminary investigation and survey of harbors and rivers in Ålaska, authorized by the Flood Control Act approved on June 30, 1948. It is also in final response to preliminary examinations and surveys of Valdez Harbor, Alaska, and Cordova Harbor, Alaska, authorized by the River and Harbor Act approved on March 2, 1945; and review of reports on Cordova Harbor, Alaska, requested by the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, House of Representatives, adopted on February 28, 1941. The report is published as House Document No. 182 of the 83d Congress, first session. This is an overall report on the Copper River Basin. The Copper River Basin extends generally from the 141st parallel which is the boundary between Canada and Alaska, as far as the tip of Kenai Peninsula. Other reports cover the remainder of Alaska. The report divides itself into several parts, and I shall take up first with your permission the Port of Seward. Seward is a terminus of the Alaska Railroad, located on an arm of the Pacific Ocean on Kenai Peninsula. It has one of the finest harbors in the world at Resurrection Bay. The project we are considering today relates only to a small-boat harbor in the larger harbor, which is already well adapted to commercial vessels of very deep draft. The tonnage in 1951, the last year we have records on, was about 572,000 tons. The railroad is run and owned by the Federal Government and goes 470 miles through the town of Anchorage to Fairbanks. It carries a very large tonnage and probably almost all of that 572,000 tons is carried on this railroad. There is also a highway to other parts of Alaska and the United States from the town of Seward. There exists at the present time in the small-boat harbor an area of about 434 acres protected by a north breakwater and a south breakwater. The depth is minus 1212 feet for the portion of this basin that is actually in use. It will accommodate 50 boats and could, with additional floats, accommodate as many as 138 without any further modification of the harbor itself. However, it is found that storms break over the south breakwater and come through the very wide entrance in such a manner as to cause a great deal of damage to the fishing boats that are moored inside. The local inhabitants believe if this condition were remedied that a larger number of vessels would establish themselves in Seward. The existing project was authorized in 1930 and 1935 and completed in 1937 at a cost of $154,000. It is desired by the local inhabitants and proposed by the Corps of Engineers to remedy this bad condition. of waves washing into the harbor by extending the south breakwater and the north breakwater by constructing a pile dike leaving a narrow gap through which access to the boat basin may be obtained. It is also proposed to raise the south breakwater so that winds and waves will not wash over that breakwater, by constructing a concrete wall on top of the rock rubble mound that now exists. This work would cost at present prices $82,400 to the Federal Government and $33,900 to local interests for constructing additional moorage facilities inside, for a total cost of $116,300. The maintenance cost on the present harbor-and that includes the deep-water portion as well as the small-boat basin-is $4,000 per year. This project would involve an additional maintenance of $1,280 per year. The benefit-cost ratio is 4.82 to 1. Local cooperation would consist of the usual requirements of holding and saving the Federal Government free from damages; providing and maintaining suitable mooring facilities open to all on equal terms. I would like to go from this harbor of Seward to the next one, which is Valdez. Before I leave that, though, I would like to state that the fish tonnage during the year 1951 at Seward, in response to the question asked, was 1,722 tons. Mr. MACK. Is the fish packed at Seward? General ITSCHNER. It is either canned there or it went through there. Yes, sir. I am sure it is either canner, or frozen, or processed in some manner. Mr. MACK. Yes. General ITSCHNER. The harbor of Valdez is located some distance from Seward in what is called Prince William Sound. Valdez does not have a railroad connection, but does have a highway connection to the interior of Alaska and to the United States. In fact, the original route of the gold miners who were going up into the Fairbanks area went through Valdez. The distance to Fairbanks is 366 miles by road, and there is a considerable cargo that goes through there all the time now by highway, including some vans that are shipped up to Alaska with a cargo inside them and merely transferred to the shore and a prime mover attached and then taken up to the interior. The tonnage through Valdez in 1951 was about 126,000 tons. The existing project consists of a deep-water dock which we are not concerned with in this particular report, and a small-boat basin. The small-boat basin as it presently exists is protected to a certain extent by a dock located to the south of it and another dock to the north, and an extension on these docks, or at least of the north dock on the north side. The existing project was authorized in 1938 and it has been constructed at a cost to the Federal Government of about $52,000. It encloses a boat basin of 3 acres. You will notice while it appears that there is considerable land on the landward side of this boat basin, before you come to the town of Valdez the contours show that most of that area is a tidal flat. The tides at Valdez are very high. They are 18 to 20 feet high on the extreme tide. The local inhabitants have found that considerable damage is done to their vessels because of the wide mouth to the boat basin, and because of the waves that wash over the land to the south of the basin during very high tide. So it is proposed by the Corps of Engineers to close the mouth of the small-boat basin by constructing a pile dike breakwater. It is also proposed to construct a fill on the existing tideland leading to the cannery dock on the south. That will constitute a breakwater protective basin from the south. It is not proposed to deepen the elevation, which is at an elevation now of 12 feet deep. Nor is it proposed to widen it. It will now accommodate 28 boats, because that is the number of berths provided for the boats, but it is large enough to accommodate 100 boats, and it is thought that there will be a considerable increase in the number of boats which will come into Valdez, and even winter there if the boat facilities are improved, so that the vessels are not damaged by the storms coming in from the southeast. The cost of this project to the Federal Government would be $117,800. To the local interests it would be $19,000, making a total cost of $136,800. It presently costs $7,000 annually to maintain the project, and it is proposed to increase that by $1,670, if this project is authorized and constructed. Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, General. Are there any questions from members of the committee of General Itschner? sir. Mr. SCUDDER. General, what is the population of Valdez? Mr. SCUDDER. Do the boats dock there all year round? General ITSCHNER. Are there boats there all the year round? Yes, Mr. SCUDDER. I mean, their domicile would be Valdez Harbor? General ITSCHNER. Yes, sir. That number does. There are many more that come up there for the salmon season and fish. Mr. SCUDDER. What is the length of the salmon season? How long do they fish there? General ITSCHNER. The salmon season would probably start about July. Governor HEINTZLEMAN. It lasts 6 or 7 months, but the canning season for canning salmon is only about 6 weeks. General ITSCHNER. Six or seven months, the Governor says. General ITSCHNER. I might add a word or two. One other project was considered at Cordova which is located to the east of Valdez, for a small-boat harbor there, but it was found to be not economically justified. Also, this is an overall report and a considerable amount of study was given to the possibility of installing hydroelectric plants and to making other improvements in the area. It was found that there is a prime capacity for hydroelectric power in this area of 1,470,000 kilowatts, the largest project being at Wood Canyon on the Copper River itself, 85 miles from the mouth of the Copper River, with a very excellent site which would produce in prime power 1,080,000 kwilowatts. 3.1 mills, based on 1949 prices. All of these projects are obviously for the future. Mr. ANGELL. How does that cost compare with the costs in the Columbia River Basin? General ITSCHNER. It is about intermediate. Some of them are less. The newer projects as they go in will be more. Mr. ANGELL. Is there a demand for that quantity of hydroelectric power in that area? General ITSCHNER. There is no demand for the power we studied, so therefore it is not recomended, but the sites are laid out and at some time in the future they might be justified. Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, General. I believe that concludes the testimony on the Alaska project. HONOLULU HARBOR Mr. ANGELL. The next project listed is Honolulu Harbor, House Document 717 of the 81st Congress. We have with us our very distinguished Delegate and friend from the Hawaiian Islands, Joseph R. Farrington. I understand he has another appointment and would like to be heard at this time. If there is no objection we will be glad to hear you at this time, Mr. Farrington. STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. FARRINGTON, DELEGATE FROM HAWAII Mr. FARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset that I strongly urge the inclusion in the rivers and harbors bill of authority for the construction of a second entrance to Honolulu Harbor, as recommended by the United States engineers. I know that at least theree members of the committee, including the chairman, Mr. Mack, and Mr. Scudder have visited Honolulu on several occasions and are in a general way, familiar with the need of this project. Mr. ANGELL. May I say to the Delegate in company with other members of the committee I had the opportunity to visit all of the inhabited islands, and this one particularly, and we were very much impressed with the feasibility and desirability of these projects. Mr. FARRINGTON. Honolulu is a city of about 270,000 people and the principal port of the Territory of Hawaii and the center of the tourist industry, all of which make it important that we proceed now with the construction of this second entrance to Honolulu Harbor. There is an additional reason for it that has developed recently. That is pointed out by the territorial superintendent of public works. The regulations relating to the importation of dynamite to Hawaii are very, very difficult to meet with present facilities. Construction of this second entrance would go a long way toward solving this problem. I would like to submit the letter of the superintendent of public works, Mr. Ben E. Nutter, in support of the construction of this second entrance. Mr. ANGELL. Without objection the letter will be received and placed in the record at this point. Mr. FARRINGTON. Also, I would like to submit a resolution adopted by the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii. Mr. ANGELL. Without objection the letter will be received and placed in the record at this point also. (The letter from Mr. Nutter, and the resolution are as follows:) Hon. JOSEPH R. FARRINGTON, TERRITORY OF HAWAII, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, Old House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. FARRINGTON: I have your letter to Governor King concerning the hearings on legislation to authorize the construction of a second entrance to Honolulu Harbor, as recommended by the Board of Engineers of the United States Army. This project has been of considerable interest to me inasmuch as I shared quite heavily in the study and report of the district engineer. Although this project is not as high in our need as is Kawaihae Harbor, it has considerable merit and is a very necessary improvement. |