If we consider that our harbor wall, which is a natural asset and costs us nothing, we can compare it with Cleveland and Buffalo, which adjoin us about 100 miles to the east and west. There they have an outer harbor wall which is constructed of stone and mortar. At Buffalo the new cost, as given to us by the United States district engineer, is $4,767,000-plus. The new construction at Cleveland, Ohio, with relation to the outer harbor wall, is $10 million. Erie for new construction is $768,000-plus.

I think those figures, gentlemen, show us the value of this outer harbor wall in relation to Erie Harbor.

That is deteriorating, according to the report of the Erosion Board, at the following rate yearly. The report shows that there is a littoral drift bringing a supply of sand at the rate of 18,000 cubic yards per year. There is being lost by reason of erosion 285,000 cubic yards of sand per year. However, that sand which is eroding is redepositing to some extent down here, and they figure that the net sand loss totals 220,000 cubic yards per year, and that it will cost 90 cents per cubic yard to put that back in, that is, to put the supply back in here. That means that we are losing approximately $198,000 worth of sand each year that this place is left unprotected.

I want to bring this point out to you which was raised with a great deal of feeling of urgency. We have this appropriation of $2,500,000 from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to be applied toward the construction of the master plan, as we refer to it. The master plan is the plan that is proposed by the United States Corps of Engineers. That appropriation was made in September 1953. Under the law of Pennsylvania that appropriation will remain effective for use in this plan until the expiration of the legislative panel year, which expires December 31, 1954.

Therefore, we bring that to your attention because there is a note of urgency in it.

There is another fact which is very important for the consideration of the committee. Although this is a beach erosion report and we are considering beach erosion in it all the way along, there is a portion of this peninsula which is referred to as a neck in the report. The neck is the northern part of section H, as referred to in the beach erosion report, all the way back to the mainland. It is A through H. The report itself shows that from A to H, which is this section. here, which is clearly nothing more than a causeway-and this really exaggerates the width of it because it is very narrow all the way through here-it shows the United States from 1919 to 1948 expended for new construction and maintenance of that construction $988,000plus. The State in this same area from here to here constructed $72,959 worth of improvements.

This is the part, members of the committee, where all the breakwater is. First we have the stone rubble in here, and then the sheet piling, which comes all the way out to here.

From there on it is referred to in plate 8, sections 4 through 7, of the new plan, showing that the United States spent $18,947 and the State of Pennsylvania spent $331,901.

That convinces me of this: That from here to here it appears to be strictly an outer harbor wall problem. In other words, it is a harbor

problem. From here out to here, where the peninsula is very thick and there is very little danger of a breakthrough, it is strictly a beacherosion problem.

The State of Pennsylvania is contributing what it thought was going to be one-half, or $2,500,000, for addition on this part here, which appears to be strictly a harbor project. As I understand it, however, it is the duty of the United States in the case of rivers and harbors to handle harbor projects on a 100 percent basis.

The narrowest part of the peninsula, as of today, is right there. This appears to be from the time of recorded history the inherent weakness.

We have a picture in our portfolio there that shows the very narrow spot in section H. In other words, right here the water is 72 feet deep at the bulkhead, and there are spots 50 feet out lakeside where it is 16 feet deep, and the waves just hit and go over that bulkhead and erode into the harbor. That is the situation we are faced with. Gentlemen, I am finished with my presentation and my observation of the study with relation to the outer harbor wall.

Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, Mr. Doyle.

Are there any questions by members of the committee of Mr. Doyle? (No response.)

Mr. ANGELL. If not, we will be glad to hear the next witness.

Mr. DWYER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on previous breakthroughs according to the report there was a matter of shallow water here. By the construction of the bulkheads-and this is something I understand that happens any place-they caused a scouring action. When you build a wall parallel to the shoreline at the water's edge you cause a scouring action, which causes deep water. So now instead of having a beach out here we have 72 feet of water there.

So if we get another breakthrough, instead of having shallow water running into our bay and the harbor, we are going to have the full force of the Lake Erie storms rolling right on into the harbor.

The report itself points out the fact that that would be very detrimental to harbor shipping and harbor installations.

In addition to that, sirs, because of the fact that we have created deep water here, we have caused further erosion on the beaches to the east, because there is no sand here to move along and feed these beaches. We have the deep water so that we have a serious erosion problem all along the neck or the base of the peninsula where it is widest.

In addition to that, at the point where the lighthouse jetty is right here, there is a Federal jetty at the eastern end of that property. That jetty is protecting the Federal Government's property. But because there is no succeeding jetty or jetties, it is causing serious erosion to the east of it. That is a point where the highway has had to be moved twice. Now it is going to have to be moved again because it just washed out this past winter.

We believe that the Federal Government should protect the harbor as they have done, but in so doing they should not do it in a way that is going to cause extreme damage beyond the point which they are protecting.

39263-54-vol. 1-49

Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, Mr. Dwyer.

Do you have any other witnesses? We have another project here that we have to finish.

Mr. DWYER. I have Mr. R. J. Gillis, our deputy administrator of the Department of Forests and Waters of the State of Pennsylvania, which is the organization that has the State responsibility for the operation of the peninsula. I believe he has a short statement he would like to make. Mr. Gillis.

STATEMENT OF R. J. GILLIS, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS AND WATERS, STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. GILLIS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

Mr. ANGELL. Do you have some additional information, or is it merely cumulative?

Mr. GILLIS. It is really substantiating Congressman Kearns' statements regarding the State's expenditures and appropriations. Mr. ANGELL. Do you have a prepared written statement? Mr. GILLIS. No, sir.

Mr. ANGELL. The committee is very glad to hear you briefly. We have another project we are anxious to get on as soon as we finish this. Mr. GILLIS. The Commonwealth's interest in the protection and preservation of Presque Isle has been evidenced over a long period of years. It has been called upon to try this, that, and the other method of preventing erosion. During the past 3 years the Commonwealth has expended about $600,000 affording emergency protection to preserve the isle.

At the last session of the legislature they passed an appropriation of $2,500,000 which Governor Fine signed on July 28, 1953, to participate in cooperation with the Army engineers when and if the Army engineers' projects for protection is undertaken.

Mr. ANGELL. We thank you very much, sir. I believe that concludes your presentation, Mr. Kearns?

Mr. SCUDDER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Colonel Allen a question regarding the type of project here contemplated.

Are you familiar with the beach at Ocean City in Maryland? Have you seen the work done there?

Colonel ALLEN. No, sir. I have not.

Mr. SCUDDER. As I understand the type of work here proposed is similar to what they have been able to accomplish at Ocean_City. That beach was being washed away until they put in groins. Today the groins are practically covered and they have a long sloping beach with shallow water. A few years ago you could walk under the boardwalk, today you can step from the beach to the walk.

It seems to me that your plan is a proper approach to solving the problem, the groin work that I have seen has caused the beach to build up and make a shallow beach were the fierceness of the waves is dissipated.

Colonel ALLEN. It has been very successful over there.

Mr. SCUDDER. Yes. This will be quite similar to that type of work. Colonel ALLEN. That is right, sir. There is one danger that should be remembered with respect to groins, however. Very frequently, a long groin stops the material which would normally find its way

up or down the coast. The quantity of sand trapped has to be taken into consideration as well as the value of the shore front which would have been protected by the material that is trapped behind a groin. Mr. SCUDDER. The groins were evidently well placed as they have a beautiful beach. They tell me it has been accomplished because of the groin work.

Mr. ANGELL. We thank you.

Congressman Kearns, we ought to thank you for your cooperation and this very fine group of your citizens who are so interested in this project.

Mr. KEARNS. I want to thank the committee for their attention. Mr. ANGELL. It seems to be a very worthy project and I assure you the committee, when we get into executive session, will be glad to consider the project in full.

Mr. ANGELL. Senator Edward Martin of Pennsylvania has indicated his deep interest in this project and has contacted me on several occasions about it. He has asked to have his statement in behalf of the project inserted in the record, as follows:

STATEMENT OF SENATOR EDWARD MARTIN

I desire to take this opportunity of supporting the position of the Honorable Carroll D. Kearns, Member of Congress from the 24th District of Pennsylvania, as stated today before this committee, and to support the statements and recommendations which have been made by the several distinguished citizens of Erie, Pa., on the necessity for the preservation of Presque Isle Peninsula, Erie, Pa.

I should like to call to your attention the fact that I have introduced in the Senate a bill, S. 2940, which has been read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on Public Works, that the project for beach erosion control on the shore of Presque Isle Peninsula, Pennsylvania, be prosecuted under the direction of the Secretary of the Army and the supervision of the Chief of Engineers, substantially in accordance with the plan recommended in House Document 231, 83d Congress, provided that the Federal participation shall be in the amount of one-half of the first cost.

I feel that the Federal Government should participate to one-half of the amount, since it is so obvious that if there should be a breakthrough in the neck of the peninsula, incalculable damage would be done to the harbor of Erie.

Testimony has been presented showing that a breakthrough at the neck would cost the Government enormous sums of money to dredge out the whole harbor, far beyond any sums spent in preventive maintenance, such as are now under consideration.

Testimony has also been presented showing that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has already appropriated and has available the sum of approximately $2,500,000 to stand its share of half the cost.

This is a matter of compelling urgency requiring the most serious consideration.

Mr. ANGELL. We have received the following telegram from Governor John S. Fine of Pennsylvania in behalf of this project: HARRISBURG, PA., March 17, 1954.

JOHN W. DWYER,

Care of House Public Works Committee,

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.:

Illness prevents my attendance at the House Public Works Committee hearing on the Presque Isle Peninsula this morning.

However, I wish you would stress for me that the saving of the Presque Isle Peninsula and the port of Erie is a major concern of my administration and should be an immedite concern of the Federal Government.

At my urging the Pennsylvania General Assembly appropriated last year $2,500,000 in the hope that immediate action might be taken to prevent a situation

due to erosion that will do irreparable harm not only to the port of Erie—one of our largest-but which may completely cut off a recreational center enjoyed by many thousands of Pennsylvanians.

Work to protect the port and the Presque Isle Peninsula should be undertaken at once. Further delay on the part of the Federal Government to do its part in this preventive work can only result in most costly deterioration and under no circumstances should be condoned.

We have done our part in Pennsylvania. It is now incumbent upon the Federal Government to do their share.

JOHN S. FINE, Governor of Pennsylvania.

ANACORTES HARBOR, WASH.

Mr. ANGELL. The next project listed this morning is one on the opposite shores of our Nation, the Anacortes Harbor in Washington. It is in the district, I understand, of our colleague, the Honorable Jack Westland, Congressman from Washington.

Would you like to have General Itschner explain this project first, Congressman Westland?

Mr. WESTLAND. Yes, sir. I believe that would be preferable, if it is agreeable with the committee.

Mr. ANGELL. If there is no objection we will hear from General Itschner.

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. E. C. ITSCHNER, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY-Resumed

General ITSCHNER. The next project we have today is the Anacortes Harbor project. It is a small-boat harbor project.

The report is submitted in compliance with a resolution adopted June 17, 1947, by the Committee on Public Works of the United States Senate. It is a review of a report on Anacortes Harbor submitted on May 10, 1933, with a view to determining the advisability of making improvements in the harbor facilities at Anacortes, Wash. The report has not been published.

Anacortes is a town of about 7,000 population in 1950 and is located on the north end of Fidalgo Island, which is about 75 miles by water from Seattle, and about 20 miles by water from Bellingham.

Fidalgo Island is located in Pudget Sound opposite the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The area around Anacortes is one which, like so much of the area in the Pacific Northwest, has a good deal of timber. There is something over 10 billion board feet of timber in the county shoreward of Anacortes, which is Skagit County.

In Anacortes, therefore, there is a good deal of activity relating to the lumber industry. There are 3 sawmills and 3 shingle mills, 1 pulp mill, 1 plywood plant, 1 sash and door factory, and 4 boatyards. It is also an important fishing village and has seven salmon canneries besides facilities for processing crab, oysters, and shellfish.

Anacortes is the gateway to the San Juan Islands, which are very famous as a recreational center.

The commerce in 1952 amounted to 739,000 tons, most of which was logs and lumber products. Breaking that down it comes to 648,000 tons of logs and 30,000 tons of lumber and forestry products; 19,000 tons of fish and 22,000 tons of petroleum, as well as 20,000 tons for all other types of commerce.