The derivation of benefits assumed to accrue to fishing vessels and to recreational craft on the basis of the recommended improvement does not appear adequately justified. The report indicates that the harbor is used very little by fishing boats and is practically ignored at present by owners of recreational craft. There appears little reasons to believe that many vessels of this type would be attracted by the improvements proposed particularly in view of the fact that this harbor s only 29 miles north of Milwaukee and 27 miles south of Sheboygan. I am authorized by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget to advise you that while there would be no objection to the submission of the report to the Congress, for the reasons stated herein and on the basis of information contained in the report, authorization of the modification of Port Washington Harbor would not be in accord with the program of the President. The Secretary of the Army in transnritting the report to the House stated this with respect to the Bureau of the Budget's comments: The Chief of Engineers has given further consideration to his report in view of the comments of the Bureau of the Budget. He advises me that the single organization involved in the question of local participation is a steam-generating plant which distributes electric energy to the public in an area of about 11,000 square miles. The proposed project will result in savings in the transportation cost of coal needed by this public utility. These savings presumably will be passed on to the public in the form of reduced power rates which are prescribed by State regulations pertinent to public utilities. Thus, these project benefits are believed to be public benefits of the type usually considered in justifying Federal expense. If the public utility is considered to fall within the category of a private interest, the cost allocation should be made on the basis of proportional benefits. In this instance, the benefits from savings in transportation to the public utility are 75 percent of the total benefits. In calculating the local share of the cost, as has been done in other cases, a 50-percent factor would be applied; thus the local contribution would be one-half of 75 percent of the cost, or 371⁄2 percent. This is in addition to the 6-percent allocation arising from benefits accruing to recreational craft. I would like to point out that in the original report on Port Washington earlier, wherein the 21-foot project was adopted, the Chief of Engineers stated this: The direct benefits from the improvement would result in large part to a single public utility enterprise. Having in view, however, the public nature of this enterprise, the considerable commerce it will support and the general policy under which the Federal Government has undertaken the improvement of outer harbors and on the lakes, it is my view that the United States may properly undertake the works proposed. This was in the prior report in which work was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1935. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Will you explain what that shaded area is up there? Colonel ALLEN. This part in black, Mr. Chairman, is the existing project-the project recommended now would extend the basin as shown in the light green. The project recommended would raise the breakwater to this point and extend it to here and remove a limb of the present breakwater as shown here. Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Thank you. Are there any questions of Colonel Allen? Mr. MACK. In your figures you say the Federal cost would be $2 million. Would the local costs be 37 percent of the $2,700,000? Colonel ALLEN. The local costs will be 432 percent of the project cost-the way the Bureau of the Budget recommends-and their cost, including the $160,000, would be $1,163,000. Mr. MACK. The Federal cost would be $2 million? Colonel ALLEN. The Federal costs wold be $2,675,000 minus $1,163,000. Mr. MACK. In other words, the total Federal cost would be only in the neighborhood of $1 million? Colonel ALLEN. About $1,500,000. The total project cost is $2,600,000, and under Budget views about $1,100,000 being taken by the local interests and $1,500,000 by the Federal Government. Mr. MACK. That would not change the benefit-cost ratio? Mr. MACK. The benefit-cost ratio, I understood you to say, is $1.06? Mr. MACK. Rather a low benefit-cost ratio. Colonel ALLEN. Yes, sir. The question here is whether this single utility which this project serves falls within the one-user concept with which we have had contact before. You may recall in other projects where the improvement was to serve one user it was felt that this one user should bear a greater share of the cost. However, as the Chief of Engineers points out, it is felt here that the savings to the public utility are passed on to the general public and are, in effect, general navigation benefits. Mr. MACK. Have you had any indication from the local interests that they would be willing to provide $1 million toward the construction of this project? Colonel ALLEN. No, sir; we have not. Mr. MACK. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. OAKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask this question: Is there another port of refuge on Lake Michigan from here south to Milwaukee? Is there an intermediate port of refuge, or is that the first one north of Milwaukee? Colonel ALLEN. No, sir. Mr. OAKMAN. That tidal wave they had there the other day along that portion of Lake Michigan affected the beach along the shores of the city of Chicago. They were able to save dozens of lives by semaphoring the threat of the oncoming wave ahead of its hitting. I was just trying to determine whether this would improve the safety factor for the small craft, or is it adequate as it is today to protect the small craft in coming in out of storms? Colonel ALLEN. No, sir. It is not adequate because the conditions at this entrance at the present time, which is from here to here, are such that ships have difficulty in maneuvering and getting through the channel when there is any type of sea running. Mr. OAKMAN. And the higher the sea the more difficult it would be to navigate that entrance? Colonel ALLEN. That is correct. The longer length of the ship and the strength of the wind has a considerable effect in their getting through the channel entrance with safety. Mr. OAKMAN. I would like to point out from personal observation that there are a great many small craft and pleasure craft and fishing craft that ply the shores of Lake Michigan between this point and Milwaukee. I think there is a potential saving of human life here that should be taken into consideration, in view of your explanation. Colonel ALLEN. There were some benefits taken for this project from the standpoint of its value as a harbor of refuge. A very small annual benefit resulted from the harbor of refuge to the extent of $2,500. Mr. NEAL. Colonel, would the protection you provided here be sufficient to render any material help in case there was an unusual tidal wave such as they had the last time? Colonel ALLEN. Those are rather unpredictable things, very much like the line storms and our tornadoes. They are the result of a quick change in pressure over the Great Lakes-that is, a low barometric pressure immediately followed by a high, or vice versa. Their path is so uncertain that it would be difficult to say whether or not this particular improvement would have any great effect on a particular condition of that sort. They do travel, depending on the rate that this particular front has. Of course, if one were coming from this direction, this breakwater extension would have the effect of dissipating it. On the other hand, if one were to come from this direction, you can see it would have a different effect. Mr. NEAL. No effect? Colonel ALLEN. Yes. Mr. MACK. How many fishing boats use this harbor? Colonel ALLEN. There were 1,167 trips in 1952 of fishing vesselsof 7 locally based fishing craft. Mr. MACK. Seven? Colonel ALLEN. Yes. Mr. MACK. How much is the fishing phase of this project costing the Federal Government? Colonel ALLEN. The reduction in damages and elimination of time lost by fishing vessels with the annual benefits amounted to $17,000 for strictly fishing craft. Mr. MACK. Now what do you propose to do with this intersection? Colonel ALLEN. Nothing is done in here. All this structure here would do would be to make this a safer and better mooring place for the fishing vessels now moored there, and for those which this project would attract. Mr. MACK. You would have to build that breakwater anyway in order to protect the commercial craft in the cove? Colonel ALLEN. That is correct. Mr. OAKMAN. I would like to point out that the tidal wave is an unusual phenomenon on the Great Lakes, but we do have, just like any other large open body of water, very frequent storms and squalls that come up suddenly. Over a period of years there is a great loss of life on the Great Lakes. Dozens and dozens of lives are lost every year because of the sudden storms and because of the lack of proper places of refuge to get out of the storms. Mr. SCUDDER. What is the average length of the seven fishing boats? Colonel ALLEN. They range from about 25 feet to 50 feet, Mr. Scudder, in overall length. Mr. MACK. Mostly two-man boats? Colonel ALLEN. Presumably. Yes, sir. Two- to three-man boats Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Are there any further questions of the colonel? (No response.) Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Thank you, Colonel. Is Mr Van Pelt here? Mr. Van Pelt, would you like to make your statement on House Document 446? STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM K. VAN PELT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN-Resumed Mr. VAN PELT. I am William K. Van Pelt, Representative of the Sixth Congressional District of Wisconsin, appearing here in behalf of the Port Washington Harbor project, which has been very thoroughly gone over by the Army engineers and on which certain improvements have been recommended. At this time I wish to express the appreciation of Mayor Kaiser at Port Washington and through him the citizens of Port Washington for the courtesy that this committee extended to them in paying a visit to Port Washington last fall to review and observe these facilities. I would like to submit my own statement, and I also have several others here, Mr. Chairman. One is from Oliver H. Smith of Smith Bros., who have one of the largest commercial fishing fleets. Also one from Mr. Alfred A. Freese, harbormaster of Port Washington. Also a letter and statement from Mayor John H. Kaiser, of the city of Port Washington, along with a series of pictures depicting the damage that has been inflicted from time to time due to storms and which pinpoints I think very truly the necessity for the harbor improvements at Port Washington. Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Without objection, these statements will be incorporated in the record. (The statements referred to are as follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM K. VAN PELT, OF WISCONSIN, ON THE PORT Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the Rivers and Harbors Subcommittee, I am William K. Van Pelt, Representative of the Sixth Congressional District of Wisconsin. I am appearing on behalf of myself and the city of Port Washington, Wis., to speak in favor of the improvements to the Port Washington, Wis., harbor as proposed by the Corps of Engineers. Initially, I would like to express my deep appreciation for the courtesy you have extended to me in affording me this opportunity to appear at this hearing. I will not burden you with technical details of this project, as this information is fully covered in the report of engineers. My appeal is based principally upon the need for expeditious action. Port Washington is a thriving community of about 5,000 population, in the heart of a rich trading area. The principal industries include furniture manufacture, concrete mixing and handling equipment and prefabricated houses. A 400,000-kilowatt steam powerplant adjacent to the harbor generates electricity for consumers in an 11,000-square-mile area. Because of its strategic location on Lake Michigan, Port Washington is a natural for a port. In the early days sailing vessels brought commerce to its door and an extensive fishing fleet developed. The expansion of industry brought modern freighters, and the construction of the steam powerplant increased the harbor requirements for unloading coal. Recreational craft from Milwaukee and other lake ports visit the harbor in large numbers. However, one factor has greatly handicapped the development and use of the harbor facilities and that is the fact that it is now and has been for many years vulnerable to lake storms. The Milwaukee Journal has referred to the harbor editorially as a "fair weather port" to be avoided by pleasure craft. Instead of being a port of refuge, even the largest freighters find it advisable to leave the harbor or stay out in rough weather. This has frequently necessitated the rerouting of shipments of coal and other products to safer harbors. The cargoes then have to be returned to Port Washington by rail or truck involving considerable extra expense. Damage to boats caught in the harbor during a storm is often extensive. Lives are placed in jeopardy and property adjacent to the harbor suffers severely. In spite of this handicap, commerce in the port is considerable. During the period from 1942 to 1951 inclusive tonnage averaged 588,649 tons. In 1951, harbor traffic consisted of 1,176,654 tons of coal delivered by 161 vessels drawing from 19 to 22 feet, and 481 tons of fresh fish delivered by 1,167 trips of seven locally based fishing craft drawing from 1.5 to 6.5 feet. This commerce points up the importance of this harbor, despite its present disadvantages. The need for improvements has been apparent for many years. Several terrific storms during 1947 and 1948 prompted your committee to authorize a review of the previous report on April 13, 1948. A public hearing was held at Port Washington on August 11, 1948, and a model study of the harbor was conducted at the Waterways Experiment Station at Vicksburg, Miss. Based upon that report, the Engineers have recommended extending the lakeward end of the breakwater 1,280 feet, raising this breakwater to 10 feet above low water and making certain other improvements to the south breakwater. The estimated cost for construction is $2,515,000. The city of Port Washington has agreed to contribute a sum of $160,000. As previously indicated, the hazard to life and property at this harbor has been recognized for many years, and this current project to correct the defects has been underway since 1948. Meanwhile damage running into the thousands of dollars continues annually. I sincerely believe that people of Port Washington have been extremely patient and that this improvement project should go forward as expeditiously as possible. I hope that this committee will include the Port Washington Harbor project in the current omnibus rivers and harbors bill. As a part of this statement I would like to offer for the record a set of actual photographs of conditions in this harbor during the storm of November 1947. I believe the committee will find these pictures of interest as they confirm the statement I have made regarding the need for prompt action on this project. Congressman WILLIAM VAN PELT, Capitol Building, Washington, D. C. CITY OF PORT WASHINGTON, OFFICE OF CITY CLERK, Port Washington, Wis., June 25, 1954. DEAR SIR: Is there anything further you can possibly do to get the appropriation for the improvement of our Port Washington Harbor? We appreciate what you have done so far, and as this is about to come up for a final decision, we would greatly appreciate your continued efforts. This The following is the tonnage of coal delivered to Port Washington, and the number of ships that delivered this coal for each year from 1947 to date. data is given below. With the addition of the new breakwater it would save considerable loss in property, which happens each time there is a bad easterly or southeasterly storm. Businesses located on the harbor cannot continue to take these losses year after year, unless something is done soon to correct this condition. If our harbor were O. K. we would have some foreign boats coming in with plywood for Harnischfeger Corp. and perhaps more of our industries would have materials shipped by water. Anything you can do to help alleviate this condition in our harbor, and to hasten the appropriation for its improvement, will be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, ALFRED A. FREESE, Harbor Master. |