mittee, as well as the companion bills H. R. 3054 and H. R. 3086 now pending before the Public Works Committee of the House.

In order to meet the increasing requirements of steamship operators based on Los Angeles Harbor following the termination of the last war, it became necessary for the Board of Harbor Commissioners to embark upon a substantial construction program to provide new facil ities and increased cargo and passenger accommodations to handle the volume of merchant shipping calling at the port. Realizing that the construction of these much needed facilities would have to be done at local expense, the Board of Harbor Commissioners set aside local funds available for construction purposes, for the purpose of building the required facilities.

However, the Board, in reliance upon the established practice of the Federal Government in opening, widening, and maintaining harbors and channels for the accommodation of American merchant shipping, made no provision in its budgeting for the dredging of water areas adjacent to certain marine terminals which it proposed to construct. Such a terminal is the passenger and cargo facilities at berths 195–198, east basin, Los Angeles Harbor, soon to be completed at a cost of approximately $8 million, to be assigned principally for use by the Matson Navigation Co.

The current annual report of the Board of Harbor Commissioners, pages 36 and 37, shows the location of the terminal in the east basin, inner harbor. It will be observed that this is a protected area shielded from the surge of the outer harbor by Terminal Island, and located on the mainland at the terminus of a network of rail lines and truck highways serving the terminal. It is located midway between two bridges, the Badger Avenue rail bridge and the adjacent highway bridge on the east, and the west basin railroad bridge on the west.

The Badger Avenue bridge constitutes the only rail connection between the mainland and Terminal Island, where the Los Angeles Naval Base and the Long Beach Naval Shipyard is situated, together with a large number of steamship terminals, fish canneries, and other industrial enterprises. It is evident that in time of war Terminal Island may be vulnerable to bombing attack or sabotage by reason of the narrow thread of rail service that exists from the mainland. If the Badger Avenue bridge were neutralized, all of Terminal Island would be without rail service; likewise, if the west basin drawbridge were knocked out it might render the whole of the west basin useless by blocking the entrance from the turning basin and reducing rail service to the outer harbor and Fort MacArthur. Such contingencies would seriously cripple the Todd Shipyard, the Bethlehem Shipyard, and the naval shipyard, to say nothing of the naval base, airfield, and other industries on Terminal Island. The new terminal, however, being situated as it is, on the mainland, would not be affected by such interruption of rail service, because it is so located that it can function. independently of these bridges.

The 1,208-foot terminal, of clear span construction, 200 feet in width, with approximately 48 acres of backland available for cargo handling operations, would make an ideal point of embarkation for use by the armed services for handling troops, airplanes, tanks, and military supplies, in time of war. During the last war much heavy military equipment was handled under extremely difficult conditions in narrow

dockside spaces at this harbor. A bottleneck in maintaining a constant flow of such heavy cargo could well be eliminated by the use of this facility as a military terminal should the need arise.

Further details concerning this facility are contained on pages 42-44 of the annual report, copies of which have been provided the committee.

The committee may well inquire: Why should such a large construction project be undertaken without providing for the necessary dredging adjacent to it in order to accommodate deepwater vessels? The answer is that a channel 35 feet deep and 200 feet wide exists immediately adjacent to the dockside which will accommodate vessels of smaller types, such as Liberty ships, but is not wide enough to provide a turning area for modern ships, such as the Lurline class, illustrated on page 18 of the report, which has an 80-foot beam and is 631 feet long.

A glance at the map will show that such a vessel, being headed upstream, would have difficulty in backing down the narrow channel and could probably not negotiate it at all if she had to pass abreast of other ships berthed at terminals on the north side of the east basin. A core of approximately 80 acres of shallow water, shelving off from 35 feet to approximately 10 feet in depth, immediately south of the new terminal, would prevent the ship from turning and heading downstream. Even with the assistance of tugs, such a vessel in narrow quarters encountering a wind, either on or off the dock, would soon be stranded or damage would result to ship and structures.

Realizing this situation, and before the new terminal was constructed, the board of harbor commissioners applied, through channels, to the Army engineers for Federal assistance in dredging the designated area and has ever since pressed its application for the dredging of this east-basin core as a proper Federal harbor-improvement project. It was not until a few months ago that the east-basin dredging project was approved by the Chief of Engineers, in the amount of $896,500 plus $5,000 annual maintenance expense, and transmitted to the Director of the Budget for consideration in connection with the President's policy on the 1954 budget, now undergoing revision. To date we have not been informed of any action. having been taken by the Budget Bureau on the report.

Since the demands of commerce and navigation required the construction of the terminal, the building of the facility went ahead at local expense without waiting for action of governmental agencies on the dredging project. As the time for completion of the terminal grew close it will be opened July 1953-it became apparent that some relief should be instituted by way of authorization bills in Congress and that a portion of the dredging would have to be undertaken by local interests in order to make the terminal available for use by its completion date, July 11, 1953. For this reason, the bills referred to, sponsored in the Senate by Senators Knowland and Kuchel, of California, and in the House by Congressmen McDonough and King, were introduced.

These bills were drafted in accordance with the precedent established in the 81st Congress, Public Law 516, approved May 17, 1950, with respect to a dredging project instituted at Lake Worth Inlet, Fla.,

by local interests in advance of congressional authorization. That bill contained the following proviso:

Provided, That the Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized to reimburse local interests for such work as they may have done upon this project, subsequent to July 1, 1949, insofar as the same shall be approved by the Chief of Engineers and found to have been done in accordance with the project modification hereby adopted: Provided further, That such payment shall not exceed the sum of $305,000;

With this precedent to rely on, upon the introduction of the subject bills providing for reimbursement to

local interests for such work as may have been done upon this project subsequent to April 1, 1953, insofar as the same shall be approved by the Chief of Engineers and found to have been done in accordance with the project hereby authorized: Provided further, That such payment shall not exceed the sum of $896,500,

a contract was let and work commenced on the dredging of the area by local interests April 27, 1953, in order that the necessary turning area would be available for use by deep-draft vessels at the time the terminal will be opened July 11, 1953. This dredging is now being undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Army engineers, even though Federal funds are not yet available to pay the cost.

It is our desire and expectation that, in accordance with the policy of harbor improvement established by the Federal Government over a period of many years and at an expenditure of many millions of dollars of Federal funds in Los Angeles Harbor, Congress will authorize the expenditure of the additional sum of less than a million dollars provided for in the bills, in order that this important project may go forward and local interests be reimbursed for expenditures necessarily made for harbor-improvement purposes and for the accommodation of navigation of American-flag vessels engaged in world commerce.

I have brought with me from California a number of specialists in their respective fields, with prepared statements, who will present various phases of the subject for the consideration of the committee and will be available to answer any questions that might arise. I have also to present, for the consideration of the committee, certain resolutions of public bodies and other organizations interested in harbor matters, in support of the project.

Thank you very much, gentlemen. I would like to defer to the next witness, if I may, in the interests of saving time.

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

Mr. ANGELL. We thank you, sir.

Mr. PERKINS. Thank you very kindly.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Mr. Perkins will introduce the witnesses who will follow. Because of the time element involved today there are a number of witnesses here from Los Angeles who would like to get their statements into the record before another hearing of the committee. Mr. ANGELL. Very well.

Mr. PERKINS. I would like to introduce Mr. Albert O. Pegg, president of the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles. He has a prepared statement which he would like to submit for the record, if it please the committee.

Mr. ANGELL. It may be done. The committee will be glad to consider the record later.

(The statement of Mr. Pegg is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF ALBERT O. PEGG, PRESIDENT, Board of HARBOR COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Albert O. Pegg. I am, by profession, a marine engineer and have been superintendent of engineering for the Union Oil Co. of California, operating at Los Angeles Harbor, and have for 37 years supervised the construction of that company's fleet. In 1942 I supervised the construction of Richfield Oil Co.'s tankship at Sparrows Point, and during World War II was outfitting manager and assistant general manager of California Shipbuilding Corp. at Wilmington, Calif., one of the largest wartime shipyards.

I am and have been a member of the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles for the past 4 years, and am currently serving as president of that body. The city of Los Angeles functions as a commission form of municipal government with respect to the control and operation of various municipal departments, and the harbor commission, under the city charter, is the governing body of the port of Los Angeles. This port became a municipal agency following the consolidation of the neighboring communities of San Pedro and Wilmington with the city of Los Angeles in 1909, and tide and submerged lands in the harbor area, formerly owned by the State of California, were granted to the city of Los Angeles, in trust, for purposes of commerce, navigation, and fishery in 1911.

Following the completion of the Federal breakwater from Point Firmin to the entrance of the main channel in 1912, dredging operations by the Federal Government have been carried on from time to time until a protected harbor, sufficient in size to handle the largest volume of tonnage of any port on the Pacific coast, has been constructed by dredging and filling. The extension of the breakwater and the bulk of the dredging work has all been undertaken and accomplished at Federal expense, and it is believed that, in accordance with the improvement program long established, additional dredging made necessary by the requirements of much-needed new terminals built at local expense, should continue to be undertaken and completed with Federal funds.

Following World War II the volume of tonnage at Los Angeles Harbor had grown to such proportions that it became necessary for the city and its harbor department to enter into a long-range construction program to provide shoreside facilities to accommodate the heavy increase in deep-water traffic engaged in foreign and offshore commerce. Construction costs had to be financed by local funds derived from current revenues, for the reason that bond obligations were still outstanding and have not yet been retired. Passenger and cargo terminals were first built for use of the American President Line, now in operation at berths 153-155 in the inner harbor, handling the large around-the-world and Far East passenger liners, such as the President Wilson. It then became apparent that other facilities were required for handling the large passenger and cargo vessels of the Matson Navigation Co. engaged in the Hawaiian trade, as the old facilities had become inadequate to handle the increase in passenger and cargo movement. As the harbor, we think, has been largely responsible for the tremendous growth of Los Angeles and the surrounding area, both in population and industry, so increased harbor facilities must be provided in order to keep pace with the march of progress.

The Board budgeted available funds for immediate construction, and allocated some $5 million to provide a new terminal at berths 195-198 in the east basin, to be assigned to Matson. Before construction contracts were let an application was filed with the Chief of Army Engineers, through the district engineer in Los Angeles, for dredging a shoal area off the east-basin yacht landings near the entrance to Cerritos Channel and opposite the new terminal site. Hearings were held in Los Angeles in May 1950 and from that time to date our application has been pressed for improvement of the east basin, Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor, as a Federal dredging project, to remove some 80 acres of shoal area by suction dredging. This project was approved by the Chief of Engineers in November 1952 and is still awaiting further necessary authorization and allocation of funds by Congress in order to accomplish the improvement. Meanwhile, due to rising costs and unforeseen increased expense, the construction project undertaken by the Harbor Department reached nearly $8 million. This figure does not include an open-wharf addition for handling certain types of cargo, which will be required in the future. At dockside, 35 feet of water has been provided

by Federal dredging projects undertaken some years ago, but the channel provided at that time was not wide enough to accommodate modern deep-draft vessels requiring maneuvering space in order to enter and leave the facility. Before the terminal was constructed, this part of the inner harbor was used by medium-draft ships, such as lumber schooners, which could enter and leave without difficulty, but with ships such as the Lurline class, the narrow channel and close proximity of shallow water makes the removal of this shoal area a necessity. Cerritos Channel has been provided, by Federal dredging, for deepwater traffic between Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors.

The harbor board, realizing that Federal funds could not be obtained before the time that the new terminal would be ready for operation early in June of this year, asked its representatives in Congress to introduce the bills now before this committee, to authorize the dredging project under consideration here, and requested a proviso incorporated in these bills to provide for reimbursement to local interests for current dredging now being undertaken. A contract was let and work commenced on the dredging of the area by local interests, to facilitate the opening of the terminal. Our sincere hope and desire is that this committee will act favorably upon the bill before it, in order that the necessary authorization may be enacted by the Congress.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. I would like to submit a statement for the chief of the Flood Control District of Los Angeles County in support of the bill before the committee.

Mr. ANGELL. It will be received.

(The statement of Mr. Hedger is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF H. E. HEDGER, CHIEF ENGINEER, FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT,

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

There has previously been filed with your committee a resolution adopted by the board of supervisors, County of Los Angeles, Calif., urging the enactment of H. R. 3054 and H. R. 3086 as an essential step toward the authorization and appropriation of funds required for the dredging of East Basin in Los Angeles Harbor.

This project is of such importance and urgency to the County of Los Angeles that the board of supervisors has also instructed me to appear before your committee and personally voice its opinion on this matter.

I am therefore pleased to reiterate to your committee the opinion of the board of supervisors of Los Angeles County that the dredging of East Basin as contemplated under H. R. 3054 and H. R. 3086 is a most worthy and important project, one that is vital to the welfare of the county, and to urge that favorable consideration to be given to this legislative proposal so that this improvement may proceed forthwith.

Mr. PERKINS. May I introduce to the committee the next witness, Mr. Ralph J. Chandler, vice president of the Matson Navigation Co., one of the larger users of the port and one of the users of the particular terminal illustrated in the photographs on the wall.

Mr. Chandler, please.

Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Chandler, we will be glad to hear from you. STATEMENT OF RALPH J. CHANDLER, VICE PRESIDENT, MATSON NAVIGATION CO.

Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. On account of the shortness of time I would like to file a statement that I have prepared for the record.

Mr. ANGELL. The statement may be received.

(The statement of Ralph J. Chandler is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF RALPH J. CHANDLER, VICE PRESIDENT, MATSON NAVIGATION CO.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Ralph J. Chandler. I am a vice president in charge of the southern California operations of the Matson Navigation Co. I have served in this capacity for 22 years, and have been actively engaged in the steamship business for over 40 years. My experi