STATEMENT OF RALPH B. DEWEY, PACIFIC AMERICAN STEAMSHIP ASSOCIATION-Resumed

Mr. DEWEY. My name is Ralph B. Dewey. I represent the Pacific American Steamship Association, a nonprofit association comprising the major American-flag cargo-ship operators on the Pacific coast. Mr. Donoghue referred to the problems of the tanker industry in the use of the Port of Richmond. My comments are directed to the cargo-ship operators who in ever-increasing numbers are using the port of Richmond's fine facilities. I particularly wish to call the attention of the committee to one particular phase of this program, which is a very serious navigational hazard for the cargo ships. That is the so-called Point Potrero, which occurs at this turn here. In the description of the report by the Army engineers they describe much more ably than I could in a few minutes here just what this problem

is.

The navigation at that turning point and the problem in substance is simply that the ships are not permitted to stay on the right side of the channel because of the narrowness of the turning basin, and any traffic that might be there at the time is incurring a tremendous risk of accidents, and so forth.

Vessel delays due to the channel problems are also well documented in the engineers' report. I only wish to remind the committee that every hour a vessel is delayed it costs $150 for a ship. There are many waits extending up to 5 or 6 hours waiting for proper tides. That cannot be ignored when we add it up over two or three hundred vessel calls per year, any one of which might incur a 5- or 6-hour delay because of the present inadequate depths of the channel.

I wish to leave those two impressions with the committee and point out that they are very urgent as far as the continued further use by the cargo ship operators of the port of Richmond are concerned. Also I call your attention to the statistics in the report which point out the tremendously increasing use of the port, which I might add parenthetically has traditionally been in the past a bulk loading port, and is becoming more and more a general merchandise port, with all of the attendant enrichment of any community that a general merchandise trade brings with it.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Dewey, is that a written statement you have that you would like to leave with the committee?

Mr. DEWEY. I do not have one, sir. I have no prepared statement. Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Are there any questions?

Mr. MACK. Is this channel you have designated in the inner area a manmade harbor?

Mr. DEWEY. Yes, sir. It is almost entirely manmade.

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Dewey.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Condon, have you any further witnesses?

Mr. CONDON. I believe Mr. Donoghue represents one other client, or is authorized to make a statement on behalf of one other association. Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Donoghue, we will be glad to hear from you again.

FURTHER STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. DONOGHUE, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE INSTITUTE, INC.

Mr. DONOGHUE. I merely wish to say that the American Merchant Marine Institute, an association of shipowners, has authorized me to appear and say that they concur in the statements made by Mr. Dewey and myself with respect to the necessity for these improvements. Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Thank you very much. Are there any questions?

(No response.)

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. If not, we thank you.

Are there any further witnesses?

Mr. CONDON. I have no further witnesses.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. If there is no further testimony on Richmond Harbor, Calif., we will call those hearings closed.

KNIFE RIVER HARBOR, MINN.

Now we will proceed with Knife River, Minn. We will hear from Colonel Allen of the Army engineers at this point.

Colonel ALLEN. The report on Knife River, Mr. Chairman, is a result of the authority contained in House Public Works Committee resolution on August 17, 1949.

Knife River is located between the ports of Duluth at the western end of Lake Superior and Two Harbors to the northwest of Knife River. This is primarily a fishing port. In years past the fishermen started to berth their vessels here in Knife River. That is not a suitable berth for fishing vessels.

Over the years they have adopted the practice of pulling their ships, their small fishing craft, up on a railway with a winch. Then when the time comes to tend their nets, they again put the vessel into the sea to go to the netted area. This results many times in a condition where the nets require tending, but because of the surf conditions in the vicinity it is impossible to launch the ships and tend the nets, with consequent loss of fish catch and damage to the nets.

The existing project for Knife Harbor provides for an entrance channel as shown here in the light red or pink, with a Y in here for berthing. Nothing has been done in that channel. That is, nothing has been done from the standpoint of Federal participation on that project since its adoption. Local interests, however, have performed work in here to the extent of about $27,000 in dredging and providing bulkheads and facilities inside the project channel.

Nothing has been done to cut through from this inner basin to Lake Superior because of their fear, and rightly so, that damage to the facilities would result if such a cut-through were made without any protection by means of a breakwater.

The district engineer examined this project and the Chief of Engineeds recommended that the project be modified to provide for a 10-foot entrance channel and an 8-foot basin, and an 8-foot depth of area in the shape of a T. He recommended that this portion of the project be abandoned. He further recommended the erection of a breakwater to provide protection to the entrance channel in the project.

In addition to the facilities of the entrance channel and breakwater there is also to be provided what is called a spending beach to dissipate the wave energy that will come in through the channel entrance and be reflected off the bulkheads and cause a series of reflecting wave conditions which will be hazardous and damaging to the craft moored in the basin.

The total cost to the Federal Government is $219,900. The benefitcost ratio is 1.81.

I point out again that local interests have expended, although not a part of the required cooperation, some $27,000 in accomplishing the portion of the inner basin dredging.

The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of the report to Congress; the Department of the Interior, Department of Fish and Wildlife, comments as follows:

The fish and Wildlife Service has no objection to the project plan as modified. It is believed a conservative approach has been used in calculating the benefits in connection with commercial and sport fishing. Accomplishment of the proposed project should be of substantial assistance in providing a harbor of refuge and providing the fish catch.

That is all.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Colonel, for how long a period during the year will this be closed up on account of ice? Or, to put it differently, how many months of the year will it be open?

Colonel ALLEN. I do not have that information, Mr. Chairman. I can put it in the record. Perhaps Mr. Blatnik can offer it.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, 8 to 812 months of the year it will be open.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSs. Thank you. Are there any questions of Colonel Allen?

Mr. MACK. Is there any local contribution?

Colonel ALLEN. To the existing project the local contribution provides for the provision of lands, easements, and rights-of-way; and in addition to that the construction of a public wharf and access road free and open to all.

Mr. MACK. Have you any estimate of the cost?

Colonel ALLEN. The non-Federal first cost is estimated at $17,700. Mr. MACK. What species of fish do they take in Lake Superior? Colonel ALLEN. Herring, and Lake Superior whitefish, and Lake Superior trout.

Mr. MACK. The fish are caught in set nets and the fishermen go out and harvest the catches?

Colonel ALLEN. The herring are caught in nets and there is also trolling for the trout and whitefish.

Mr. MACK. That is all.

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

(No response.)

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. We will hear our colleague, Mr. Blatnik now on the Knife Harbor in Minnesota.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN A. BLATNIK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the Knife River Harbor project is a fishing harbor on the north shore of Lake Superior about 19 miles northeast of Duluth. In brief I shall just make a summary here.

The fishermen of the community of Knife River have made a basin and intend to put up warehouses and a packing plant and canning plant for their fish. The basin at present cannot be used because of a rock ledge which cuts it off from Lake Superior.

This project would include a channel giving access to the basin, but the big expense is that the harbor is exposed for a full 180° from the northeast all the way to the south and southwest to Lake Superior, which has rather violent storms. So the harbor cannot be used at present.

The Board of Engineers and the Corps of Engineers have made a favorable report for this modification of the channels and a breakwater. The benefit-cost ratio is about 1.8.

The thing I want to stress about this particular harbor is that these people these very hardy Norwegian fishermen, who have lived there for years, have gone on their own as far as they could and only asked for this harbor because the Corps of Engineers recognizes as we do that the rest of the project is far beyond their ability to handle. They have made this basin on a voluntary cooperative basis and donated labor toward its construction. The nearby railroad has made contributions of piles and steel and all of the other things they need.

I went up there and was rather distressed at the rugged life they have to lead. Year after year the storms come in and batter this rocky coast. The fishing craft have to be pulled completely out of the water. They are mounted on little rails and are pulled way up. Even now some craft use the existing harbor and use winches to pull their little craft over the rock ledge and into the little basin. They have been hard-put and up against it. This means their livelihood." Consequently there will be a great expansion in fishing and other uses of this port, such as for a harbor of refuge and recreation uses.

The Board of Engineers recommend the modification of this Knife River Harbor project.

activity?

Mr. MACK. Mr. Blatnik, how many fishing craft use this port? Mr. BLATNIK. In 1952, 42 commercial fishing boats operated on this stretch between Two Harbors and Duluth. Of these, 10 operated continuously from Knife River and made 922 round trips. Mr. MACK. This is primarily a commercial Mr. BLATNIK, Primarily commercial fishing. livelihood and income to that little community. boats using that were the facilities available. that do use it have to be pulled clean out of the little carriages and pulled way up high on the rocky ledge in order to get them out of the way of the waves.

This is a source of There would be more As I said, now those water and on to these

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Are there any further questions?

(No response.)

Mr. AUCHINCLOSs. If not, that will conclude the hearing on Knife River.

PORT WASHINGTON HARBOR

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. The next project we will take up will be Port Washington Harbor.

Colonel Allen.

Colonel ALLEN. Port Washington Harbor is located on the west shore of Lake Michigan about 29 miles north of Milwaukee. It has a tributary area of about 23,000 people. Port Washington itself has a population of 5,000.

The country is generally an agricultural region, with some manufacturing in Port Washington. The commerce in and out of the Port Washington area on a 10-year average was 587,000 tons. In 1951 this tonnage was 1,200,000. It is anticipated that this 1,200,000 will be a minimum in the future. The primary cargo of Port Washington Harbor is coal to supply the power and light plant storage area which is shown right here. This is the powerplant. They added an additional unit and it is estimated their requirements will be at least 1,200,000 tons in the future.

The present project for Port Washington Harbor is shown in black. It is a project of a 21-foot depth in the basin, with two basins in the interior of 18 feet. It also consists of the breakwater from the land up to this point. Considerable difficulty is had by those who navigate this channel due to the fact that the harbor entrance shown right here, from here to here at this point, provides access to the sea, and the storm waves come in and render anchoring and handling of coal at this pier very hazardous. It also results in severe damage to the fishing ships and all of the smaller craft which are anchored in the inner basins.

It is the desire of local interests, and the Chief of Engineers so reports, that the breakwater be raised at this point; that it further be extended to this point, and this breakwater be removed. This will give protection to the operators in the harbor and provide a safer harbor and improve the harbor for the use of small craft which, by reason of this exposure at the present time, have largely left the area. There are very few small-craft operators in the area. They sustain damage by reason of storms coming in here and interfering with their operation at the bulkheads and in the channels.

The cost of this project to the Federal Government is $2,515,000. The benefit-cost ratio of the project is 1.06. The report recommended that local interests contribute in cash $160,000. This was based on an evaluation of benefits which would accrue by reason of improving the harbor for recreational purposes.

Local interests were assessed under the project to contribute to the extent of $160,000. The Bureau of the Budget has this to say about the report:

The primary purpose of the recommended project modification appears to be the accommodation of vessels delivering coal to the Wisconsin Electric Power Co. dock. It has been the policy of the United States to require substantially greater local participation in navigation improvements whose benefits are expected to accrue mainly to a single organization. The report on Port Washington Harbor which requires only a 6-percent local contribution based on the assumption that 6 percent of the annual benefits are of local nature, does not contain justification to warrant an exception to this policy.

39263-54-vol. 1-60