that the use of the larger ships, both longer and deeper, require additional project work from the standpoint of depth, width and easing of the bends.

The Chief of Engineers and the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors have considered this project and area recommending that the project for Richmond Harbor be in effect deepened and widened. The project will provide a connecting channel 600 feet wide and 35 feet deep. It will provide for a 35-foot approach channel to the Richmond long wharf. It will provide for widening of this channel to 600 feet and deepening to 35 feet.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Colonel, did you say widening the channel 600 feet?

Colonel ALLEN. No, sir: to 600 feet from 400 feet.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. All right.

Colonel ALLEN. It will further provide for the deepening of this turning basin to 35 feet. The depth will be continued at 35 feet around this bend with widening in the bends, and a full width of 850 feet up to this point, and 200 feet wide and 35 feet deep up to the head of the Santa Fe Channel. The report also recommended maintenance at the Molate Point pier, which is a naval fuel pier. That is the only area of the report to which the Bureau of the Budget objected. They have no objection to the submission of the report, but felt that consideration should be given to funding this maintenance from military funds when maintenance is required. The requirement of that would be about $15,000 annually for maintenance dredging at Molate Point to serve naval tankers. That is the only objection that the Bureau of the Budget had to offer.

The cost of this project to the Federal Government would be $2,086,000, with an annual maintenance including the $15,000 previously mentioned, of $41,400.

The benefit-cost ratio is estimated as 1.8.

That is all.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Is there any local contribution, Colonel?

Colonel ALLEN. The local contribution is not in the form of cash. It is the usual lands and rights-of-way and easements, and the provision of suitable wharves and cargo-loading facilities open to all.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Are there any questions of Colonel Allen, gentlemen?

Mr. MACK. Colonel, when was the final report received by the committee from the Army engineers and from the Bureau of the Budget on this project? The thing I am wondering about is, the bill is supposed to go before the full committee tomorrow and this project comes up today at the last minute. It involves an expenditure of over $2 million.

Colonel ALLEN. The Bureau of the Budget letter, Mr. Mack, is dated April 21 of this year.

Mr. MACK. The project has been up to the committee then since early May.

Colonel ALLEN. Shortly after that is normal.

Mr. MACK. Who pays the maintenance?

Colonel ALLEN. The Federal Government maintains the entire project now.

Mr. MACK. And will continue to do so under this proposal?
Colonel ALLEN. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. SCUDDER. Colonel, what is the location on that map of the Kaiser shipbuilding works?

Colonel ALLEN. I cannot tell you that, Mr. Scudder. I do not know.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS M. CARLSON, CITY ATTORNEY,
CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIF.

Mr. CARLSON. It is at the point designated Santa Fe Channel. The Kaiser shipyard is in here.

Mr. SCUDDER. In other words, you would have to travel the entire length of the arm to get to the Kaiser shipyard; would you not?

Mr. CARLSON. Of course, there is not a great deal being done there now, Congressman Scudder.

Mr. SCUDDER. NO.

Mr. MACK. Is the equipment all still located at those yards? they resume operations?

Could

Mr. CARLSON. There is only one permanent yard. There were four of them. There is one permanent yard which is presently activated in a minor capacity. The three other yards the Government sold to industries, and new industries have located there which are doing a great deal to support the tremendous population that came there during the shipyard days.

Mr. SCUDDER. Mr. Carlson, is the inner harbor project, which is where you indicated the shipyard is, essential for the transportation of oil? Do the oil tankers go in there?

Mr. CARLSON. The oil tankers do not go in there, but the Ford assembly plant is located here, and you have the canneries located here on the channel, too.

Mr. SCUDDER. Do they need a 35-foot depth?

Mr. CARLSON. Absolutely. I think there is something that was overlooked to some extent. We are, from the point of view of tonnage, the second largest harbor on the Pacific coast-Los Angeles being first and Richmond Harbor being second. We outrank San Francisco and Oakland, although we are on San Francisco Bay.

Mr. MACK. When you speak of handling of petroleum products, are you referring to incoming shipments or outgoing shipments? Mr. CARLSON. Both.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Are there any further questions of Colonel Allen at this point?

(No response.)

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Thank you very much, Colonel.

We will now hear from Mr. Condon, in whose district this project is. STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT L. CONDON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. CONDON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

I have no prepared statement. I merely wish to appear this morning to thank the committee very much for giving us the opportunity to be heard on our project.

39263-54-vol. 1--39

There are two witnesses I will call who have very brief statements. First I would like to call Mr. Robert F. Donoghue (who represents the Pacific-American Tankship Association.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Donoghue, will you identify yourself for the record, please?

STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. DONOGHUE, REPRESENTING
PACIFIC-AMERICAN TANKSHIP ASSOCIATION

Mr. DONOGHUE. My name is Robert F. Donoghue. I represent the Pacific-American Tankship Association, which is composed of the following companies, located on the Pacific coast of the United States, owning and operating tankships:

We appear in support of the project improvements outlined in House Document No. 395, 83d Congress, 2d session. For many years our members have been concerned about the difficulties and delavs encountered when their tankers arrive at Richmond Harbor for discharge.

The present authorized depth is not sufficient to accommodate, without danger or delay, a fully loaded T-2 tanker, which has a carrying capacity of approximately 16,600 tons and which was the type of vessel predominantly used on the west coast at the time the initial hearing on this project was held at Richmond on July 28, 1948. Since that hearing, the trend toward larger and deeper draft vessels has made the situation increasingly critical from the standpoints of safety of navigation and costly vessel delays. For example, vessels of 28,000 deadweight tons, drawing in excess of 33 feet of water, now discharge their cargo at the Richmond long wharf while the T-2's continue, under difficulties, to use the facilities of the inner harbor. Delays of from 4 to 9 hours in docking the vessels are not uncommon in such circumstances. An instance of the dangers inherent in the present depth of water at the Richmond long wharf is reflected in an excerpt from a letter dated April 23, 1953, from the Standard Oil Co. of California to the Office of the Chief of Engineers, as follows:

In the meantime, the situation becomes more critical each day. As an example of this, early this month the inadequacy of water depth in the approaches to our Richmond long wharf very nearly caused a serious accident. A loaded 24,200 deadweight ton tanker, with a mean summer draft of over 32 feet, was approaching the wharf when the lack of water beneath the vessel caused it to take a sudden sheer. Fortunately, this sheer was away from the wharf. Had it been toward the wharf, as it could just as well have been, the results would probably have been disastrous. It is quite likely that fire would have resulted with the strong possibility of loss of life, to say nothing of the certainty of serious damage to the vessel and this highly important oil terminal.

We wish to point out that the reports of the Board of Engineers and the San Francisco district engineer comprehensively and adequately set forth the problems involved in tank vessels navigating under the existing conditions and the benefits that will be derived from the adoption of the program under consideration. This information is available to your committee and we see no necessity for repeating it here.

We have reviewed the reports mentioned above and wholeheartedly agree with the conclusions reached first by the district engineer and then by the Board of Engineers. We merely wish to stress here the fact that not only was the projected improvement necessary at the time of the hearing in 1948, but that the need has progressively increased since that time and our members believe it is absolutely essential that the projected improvement be undertaken without further delay.

In closing may I state that we appreciate the courtesy of being permitted to appear before your committee on this matter and urgently request your favorable consideration of the projected improvement. Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Thank you very much, Mr. Donoghue. Are there any questions?

(No response.)

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Thank you very much.

Do you have any other witnesses, Mr. Condon?

Mr. CONDON. Congressman George P. Miller just arrived. This project is located in what used to be his district, and I know he would like to say something.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. We will be very happy to hear from you, Mr. Miller.

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE P. MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. MILLER. If I may, Mr. Chairman, because I have left the Armed Services Committee, which is having some very important hearings. now, I would appreciate the opportunity to testify at this point.

I am George P. Miller, now of the Eighth District. This project was formerly located in the district I represented. I am quite familiar with the area there and I want to endorse the project. I think it is one that is long overdue. The facilities needed for Richmond Harbor are important to the economic life of the bay area, particularly to its shipping.

We have had a long fight on this. I know without going into details you will get all of the details without my repeating those things. But I do just want to lend my voice to the others that will be here. Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Thank you very much. Are there any questions to be asked of Mr. Miller?

(No response.)

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, sir.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSs. Mr. Condon, do you have any other witnesses? Mr. CONDON. The only other witness I would like to present to the committee is the city attorney, Mr. Thomas M. Carlson.

FURTHER STATEMENT OF THOMAS M. CARLSON, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIF.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement which will take, I imagine, less than 2 or 3 minutes. The reason why I have brought the briefcase is that I have been working on this project for some 6 years and naturally to me the project culminating in a bill is a matter of some real pride.

My name is Thomas M. Carlson, I am city attorney for the city of Richmond, Calif., and have held that position for the past 28 years. I am fully conversant with the improvements recommended by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors with respect to the deepening and dredging of channels and approaches in Richmond Harbor, having conducted the initial hearing before the district engineer at Richmond in July 1948, and having participated in the several subsequent discussions and hearings, culminating with the hearing before the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors at Washington in March of 1953.

May I state at the outset that the city of Richmond is in thorough agreement with the recommendations of the Corps of Engineers that the various approaches and channels mentioned in their reports be widened and deepened. We believe that the passage of time since 1948 has aggravated the condition which existed in 1948 and which formed the basis for the recommended project. Not only would the city of Richmond and its residents receive considerable benefit directly and indirectly from the completion of this project, but the project itself would be of great benefit to the national interest since the industries located on these waterways and serving this area are extremely important in the national interest as well as in the economy of the area.

May I remark further that the brevity of my statement is the result of our belief that the findings and recommendations of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, supported by the detailed report of the district engineer, San Francisco District, so ably and fully sets forth the need for the improvements and the benefits to be derived therefrom that any extended statement on my part would be merely repetitious.

In conclusion, I wish to repeat that the city of Richmond most strongly urges that the proposed widening and deepening of the channels and approaches go forward without delay.

I thank you, gentlemen, for the privilege of appearing before the committee on this matter.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Thank you, Mr. Carlson. Are there any questions?

(No response.)

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. If not, we thank you very much, Mr. Carlson. Mr. Condon, you may call your next witness.

Mr. CONDON. I understand that Mr. Dewey of the Pacific American Steamship Association is here and would like to make a brief state

ment.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Will you identify yourself for the record, please?