Rivers and Harbors is considered appropriate if it is the intent of Congress to provide Federal assistance in the development of harbors and channels of the type proposed in this report.

The report of the Chief of Engineers was referred to the Governor of the State and he concurred in the recommendations. Likewise the Bureau of the Budget concurred in those recommendations.

The initial cost as contained in House Document No. 242, 83d Congress, 2d session, called for a Federal expenditure of $145,000 and a non-Federal expenditure of $136,400 for a total of $281,400.

Based on costs in September 1953, the estimated Federal construction cost for the project is now $166,400, and the non-Federal cost $158,200, or a total of $324,600. The annual charges total $15,170, and the benefit-cost ratio is 1.9 to 1.

I should like to elaborate just briefly on the type of benefits that would come from the development of this particular project. They would be, as I have said, primarily recreational in nature. The report indicates that the recreational fleet moored at Bullock Cove totals 84 boats. If the improvement is constructed, it is estimated that the existing fleet would be increased both by new recreational craft and by transfers of recreational craft from other areas.

In addition to the recreational benefits, there is a small portion of the total benefits attributable to savings in time to the fishing fleet that operates out of Bullock Cove, a part of the year.

Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, Colonel.

Are there any questions from members of the committee?

Mr. MACK. Colonel, why is it that the local contribution on this project and on the one which preceded it is so large? It runs from 40 to 50 percent, and that is rather unusual in projects of this type, is it not?

Colonel MILNE. This project is primarily a recreational project, sir. We, by action of the Congress, have been told to consider recreational craft in reporting on navigation projects. We have developed a formula for evaluating the benefits of recreational craft and have generally recommended that recreational benefits be considered half general and half local. In this case almost all of the benefits were recreational. Therefore, above half of the costs would be local costs. Mr. MACK. Were the benefits largely of a commercial nature then the Federal Government would assume a much larger percent?

Colonel MILNE. That is right. Commercial benefits are considered of a general nature and the Federal Government assumes the costs allocated to them.

Mr. SCUDDER. Has the policy been changed by the Engineers or the Congress as to participation in recreational harbors? On the Pacific coast we have a great number of harbors which would be wholly recreational. There would be some commercial use, possibly 15 to 20 commercial boats in some. Quite a number of these harbors were under investigation but were stopped because they were primarily recreational.

I am wondering if that policy still applies or if we are to now start considering recreational harbors. Personally I think recreational harbors are very worthwhile. I am for them. I would like to know if this policy is going to apply to the Pacific coast.

Colonel MILNE. I think I can answer your question, Mr. Scudder, that with the outbreak of the Korean war the amount of money we

39263-54-vol. 1-12

were given for our survey reports was very drastically curtailed. We stopped work on most recreational harbor reports not only on the Pacific coast, but elsewhere.

The Bullock Cove report is one we had completed prior to the Korean war. But since the beginning of the Korean war we have not spent any appreciable amount of money on recreational harbor studies. Mr. SCUDDER. I am glad to hear that, because in some of the small harbors to which I have reference on the Pacific coast several hundred expensive craft berth in these harbors. There is available anchorage for many boats, and the local interests are anxious to develop these recreational harbors, particularly if they could get Federal assistance. Colonel MILNE. Yes, sir. We have a number of studies in California for that type of project.

Mr. ANGELL. Are there any further questions by members of the committee?

(No response.)

Mr. ANGELL. If not, we thank you, Colonel.

Our colleague, Mr. Forand, is here, and we are very happy to hear from you now.

STATEMENT OF HON. AIME J. FORAND, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE FIRST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

Mr. FORAND. I am very grateful to this committee for giving consideration to this project and the next project on your list, because they have been pending for a long time. While I realize it is the procedure in cases of this type, I want you to understand I am not criticizing but I am happy that we have reached the point of consideration.

The colonel made mention of the fact that recreation seems to overshadow the commercial insofar as this project is concerned. On that point we must not lose sight of the fact that where there is recreation there are also a lot of jobs given to people to sustain the recreational activities.

This morning I received a telephone call from Mr. James Rielly, the president of the Town Council of East Priovidence, where this Bullock Cove is located. Mr. Rielly was to come before the committee, and so was Dr. Ernest McVey, who I believe is the commodore of the Narragansett Terrace Yacht or Boat Club. Both of them were grounded because the planes in Rhode Island just could not leave the ground. For that reason I shall give you the gist of what they would have

said.

Mr. Rielly said when he called me that East Providence put up some $32,000 in 1952 in trying to help pay a share of this project. Of course, the whole town is very much interested in the development of Bullock Cove.

of

Dr. McVey tells me that there is a great increase of interest in the Narragansett Bay power squadron, which I believe originated in Brown University and which is connected with the so-called naval power squadrons throughout the country. He is heading a group classes of people who own boats and want to learn to handle them, and so forth. Many new boatowners are coming into the picture. When he started his classes he was having about 50 to 60 people at a session, but recently he has had a class of as many as 354, which is an indication of the marked interest in boating in that area.

Another point he wanted me to make before the committee is the fact that the registration of boats with the Coast Guard has increased by some 200 in the comparatively recent past. I am not going to dwell on the virtues of this project because the committee has the document and I promised the chairman I would be brief. But I would like to say that I have here telegrams, and I am just going to read you whom they are from. They all endorse this project.

The Riverside Businessmen's Association, signed by the correspondence secretary, Mr. Frederick J. McCusker; director of public works in the State of Rhode Island, Mr. Phillip S. Mancini; Mr. Leroy Chace, secretary of the Narragansett Terrace Boat Club; and one from the Governor of the State of Rhode Island, endorsing not only this project but also the one scheduled to come up next, the Sakonnet Harbor project.

Mr. Chairman, I sincerely want to express my appreciation to the committee for the time it has given me on this item, and I feel confident you are going to give it the sympathetic consideration which I feel the project deserves.

Thank you very much.

Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, Congressman.

Are there any questions by members of the committee?

(No response.)

Mr. ANGELL. We have a statement here from Congressman Fogarty on this project, and if there is no objection it will be inserted in the record at this point. Also the telegrams sent to Mr. Forand. (The document referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN E. FOGARTY, SECOND DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

Mr. Chairman, I desire to obtain this committee's favorable consideration of two projects in the State of Rhode Island. Officially they are referred to as the improvement of Sakonnet Harbor in the town of Little Compton, R. I., and the improvement of Bullocks Cove in the town of East Providence, R. I.

The Sakonnet Harbor project has been urged for many years. Both the New England field office of the Army engineers and the Board of Engineers of that agency here in Washington have recommended the extension of the present breakwater at Sakonnet by 400 feet and the dredging of the harbor to a depth of 8 feet. The State of Rhode Island through its department of public works has strongly endorsed this proposal and has stated that the project would be of inestimable value, not only to the local community, but to many others who would be attracted to the port by the improved facilities.

Local interests have given the required assurances that they will: (a) Contribute $18,700 in cash toward the cost of construction; (b) furnish free of cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for the initial work, and for subsequent maintenance when and as required; and (c) hold and save the United States free from damages due to construction and maintenance of the project.

The hearings conducted by the Army engineers contain a wealth of information showing the urgent need for this improvement. These hearings point out, quite clearly and emphatically, that present conditions seriously interfere with the successful operation of the fishing industry. They further graphically indicate that, during storms, continued severe damage will be felt by those boats still using the harbor due to the present inadequate breakwater.

The improvements for which this committee's consideration is requested would do much to eliminate Sakonnet Harbor's present problems. They would certainly be a much needed boon to the fishing and lobstering industry of that area, a godsend to navigation in that an adequate harbor of refuge would be provided, and a direct benefit to all the people in the southeastern section of Rhode Island.

The Bullocks Cove project has also been given the full approval of the Army engineers and the State of Rhode Island. This improvement has been long sought by the yachting and boating associations of Narragansett Bay as a refuge for small craft. The recommended proposal provides for the cutting of an entrance channel of 75-foot width into the cove and the making of 2 basins within the cove, 1 for turning and the other for mooring purposes. The cove itself offers excellent storm protection but little can be done to utilize its full potentiality until the suggested improvements are made.

Both the Sakonnet Harbor and Bullocks Cove projects are considered vital to the development of our Rhode Island economy through the full utilization of its water resources. I cannot too strongly urge this committee to take favorable action on both measures and sincerely hope that you will include both in the bill which you will report to the Congress.

Mr. FORAND. We have no other witnesses, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ANGELL. That concludes your testimony, Congressman Forand? Mr. FORAND. On this project. Yes, sir..

SAKONNET HARBOR, R. I.

Mr. ANGELL. Without objection, we will take up the next project, Sakonnet Harbor in Rhode Island, in House Document No. 436. Colonel Milne, we will be glad to hear from you on that now.

Colonel MILNE. The report on Sakonnet Harbor, R. I., is contained in House Document No. 436, 82d Congress, 2d session. This document was prepared in compliance with a House Committee on Public Works resolution adopted April 13, 1948.

Sakonnet Harbor is located in Rhode Island, south of Providence. The existing Federal project at Sakonnet consists of a short breakwater and removal of nearby rock ledges to a depth of 8 feet.

The annual commerce there in recent years is estimated at approximately 5,240,000 pounds of fish and 230,000 pounds of lobster.

The difficulties to present navigation are due to two things:

One, the harbor is exposed to waves and wind coming from the north.

Two, the anchorage area within the harbor is restricted and it is not down to a depth that is considered desirable by the owners of both the recreational and fishing craft in the area.

In addition, there is in the area a loose rockpile that presents a rather considerable hazard to navigation. Local interests requested that an extension to the existing breakwater be built toward the northeast and that a larger anchorage area be dredged to the depth of 8 feet.

Our review of the project indicates that from an economic viewpoint a breakwater in accordance with the desires of local interests is justified. Likewise, it is considered that the dredging of a larger anchorage area to a common depth of 8 feet would likewise be justified. The report was sent to the Governor of the State, who concurred in it. The Bureau of the Budget found some exceptions to our report which, I believe, should be read into the record:

Considering the type of improvement proposed and the nature of the facilities that would be provided, the expenditures involved appear disproportionately large. Reevaluation of the benefits, adjusted to reflect a consideration of the foregoing observations, might render the economic justification submarginal. Accordingly, 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 Congress, on the basis of the information available to us, the proposed

improvement at Sakonnet Harbor should be considered of low priority and a complete reevaluation of the benefits and costs should be made before funds are requested for initiation of construction in order to assure that the Federal expenditures required are justified.

Mr. ANGELL. What date is that?

Colonel MILNE. The Bureau of the Budget's letter was dated March 31, 1952.

With the chairman's permission I would like to come back to those comments in just a moment.

The cost of the project as contained in the document showed a Federal cost of $465,800, and a non-Federal cost of $18,700, for a total of $484,500. These estimates revised to September 1953 prices show a Federal construction cost of $559,700, with the non-Federal cash contribution of $18,700 for a total of $578,400.

Mr. ANGELL. Will you repeat those figures again, please?
Colonel MILNE. Yes, sir.

$559,700 Federal cost and $18,700 non-Federal cost.

Mr. ANGELL. Thank you.

Colonel MILNE. The annual charges based on September 1953 prices are $22,430. The benefit-cost ratio, based again on the revised prices, is 2.4 to 1.

I think it might be well to look very briefly at the benefits we claimed in the original document. Because of the lack of a breakwater, harbor conditions are, during the wintertime, extremely rough and hazardous to boats at anchor and these conditions practically render it impossible for the fishing fleet to get out to the fishing banks in the winter months.

In addition, the lack of depth in the unimproved area presents a hazard to the fishing boats at all times of the year, but particularly in the wintertime.

Our analysis of the problem indicates that if this breakwater were placed as proposed, wave action within the basin proper would be reduced. The area proposed to be dredged to a depth of 8 feet would be adequate not only for the existing fleet but for transfer of vessels from other areas to this area to take advantage of the winter fishing

season.

The catch of fish, when this report was prepared, was estimated at about 514 million pounds of fish on an annual basis. That represented roughly 200,000 pounds to 225,000 pounds of fish per vessel based in the area. From records of other places where winter fishing is possible, it is known that vessels of the type that use Sakonnet Harbor can catch about 300,000 pounds per fishing season. In other words, the winter season represents about 25 percent of their catch. At this particular harbor they are not able to use the fishing fleet during the winter season.

So, based on vessels in the harbor we estimated that the improvement would permit them to increase their catch by 700,000 to 750,000 pounds of fish yearly.

In addition, we assumed that equivalent of 5 new vessels would also use that harbor, with an annual catch of 300,000 pounds, or 12 million pounds of fish, for a grand total increased catch of fish of 21/4 million pounds.

That is the basis on which we arrived at our economic conclusions. The Bureau of the Budget took exception to these economic assump