These squalls, or baby storms, approach with very little warning and reach high velocities in a very short time. They are the dread of the fisherman and he is constantly on the alert to avoid them and to take steps to protect his boat when he is caught in them. There have been many instances in which boats were capsized and crews lost in these squalls. The Eastpoint fishermen are no exception, and have suffered loss of life and property because they had no deep water approach to their docks during bad weather. We lost two fishermen in the last 60 days. The boat capsized.

The Eastpoint Channel would serve as an important safety measure both in approaching the docks and providing suitable anchorage areas. This, we feel, is one of the strongest points in our statement. That is the fact that it would be a harbor of refuge. These two men who were drowned were from Eastpoint, to which I referred.

Justification: The Corps of Engineers has made a careful study of this project and found it to be economically justified. They have recommended to you, through channels, that it be authorized and constructed. We are here to show our interest and assure you that the project is needed today more than it was when the surveys were made. We are positive that the future welfare of Eastpoint is directly dependent on what action you take today.

We sincerely appreciate this opportunity to present our testimony. I would like you to turn over the page to see the maps of the Eastpoint project. They are self-explanatory.

The next exhibit is the local climatological data.

The first picture, if you will turn in your briefs, gentlemen, shows a view that reveals on the right side the fact that there is no water in this tide which we show at mean low tide on February 2. You can see the long mud flats as testified to by the Engineers going out 2,000 feet from the dock.

In the next picture you will see a dog and a boat and fishermen trying to push the boat off. The water barely covers the dog's toes, so you see it is not very deep there, and yet you are some thousand yards offshore.

Turning over again you will see a picture with the water shining, and yet you can see oyster shells sticking out at the bottom of the shore. You do not have 2 inches of water there.

The last picture is at low tide. Not mean low tide. We are trying to be fair about it. That is some 3,000 yards offshore. You will notice the mass of oyster shells completely out of the water.

Mr. ANGELL. Are those commercial oysters there?

Mr. FLOYD. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANGELL. And edible?

Mr. FLOYD. Yes, sir. Of course, we have all types of oyster bars, but that is a bar from which many oysters are taken. It is at Cat Point, which is at the edge of Eastpoint.

I would like to state that the name Apalachicola was called by our former Governor McIntyre to be the most euphonious word in the language. We are glad to bring that to your attention today.

Mr. ANGELL. The committee has been very happy to receive this very fine statement from you.

Are there any questions, Mr. Scudder, from you of the witness?

Mr. SCUDDER. There is nothing extraordinary about oysters being out of the water. You are not trying to correct that, are you, by raising the tide to cover the oysters?

Mr. FLOYD. You are quite correct. But when the oysters are out of the water in an area which it is necessary to cross with our boats, I think it is a little extraordinary to expect a boat to get across there or the area in the picture.

Mr. SCUDDER. Will the channel go through the oyster beds?

Mr. FLOYD. It goes between them. This channel will not disturb the oyster production.

Mr. SCUDDER. I had an oyster farm at one time. The oysters seemed to grow better if they were out of the water at tidal intervals.

Mr. FLOYD. That is right. Thank you for your question.

Mr. ANGELL. I would like to pursue that question a little further. How long may the oysters be exposed out of the water without damage to them?

Mr. FLOYD. Mr. Chairman, I am not an expert, but I have been raised on the world's best bivalve there and I believe I can answer your question. In the hottest days of summer, about a day and a half to two days is all they can stand. In the winter maybe three or four or five. It does not bother them at all. But they cannot stand much heat in the summer.

Mr. ANGELL. Are the oysters lying almost on top of the sand or are they underneath the sand?

Mr. FLOYD. Most of your better oysters are at least 4 to 5 inches under the water at low tide always. Most of your coon oysters are those that are exposed all the time.

Mr. ANGELL. But are they underneath the sand too, or do they lie on top of the sand?

Mr. FLOYD. They go into the mud. Our oysters are not raised in sand. It is a kind of black mud. Some of them are down a little bit, but the lip has to be out a bit to feed and breathe.

Mr. ANGELL. Are these oyster beds publicly owned or privately owned?

Mr. FLOYD. They are all publicly owned except two or three in the bay. The ones in the pictures are publicly owned.

Mr. ANGELL. What arrangements do they have for parceling those out to different fishermen ?

Mr. FLOYD. We have a State law providing for the leasing of them and we are encouraging that system now. However, it has still not been taken up commercially. We can grow an oyster in much less time in our State than it can be grown elsewhere. At Apalachicola we can grow one in 3 or 4 months, whereas it would take the oyster 27 months to grow in Chesapeake Bay. They both grow in the winter and summer in this particular area of Florida. South of it they only grow in the winter and north of us only in the summer. We are in the most productive oyster belt.

Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Steed, do you have any questions?

Mr. STEED. No questions.

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, if I may I would like to present two witnesses who assisted in the preparation of this statement which has just been made, but who do not desire to make statements at this time. First, Mr. W. H. Creekmore, city manager of Apalachicola, Fla.,

and then Mr. Arthur L. Tucker, a seafood dealer of Eastpoint, Fla. He represents the seafood dealers of the Eastpoint area here today and has been one of the people who was instrumental in showing the need for this project from the beginning.

Mr. ANGELL. We are very glad to have those men present before the committee.

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, for a further brief summary of this problem I would like to present the State Representative from Franklin County, the Honorable Bryant G. Patton.

Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Patton, the committee is very glad to hear you.

STATEMENT OF HON. BRYANT G. PATTON, A STATE REPRESENTATIVE OF FLORIDA-Resumed

Mr. PATTON. My name is Bryant G. Patton, representing Franklin County.

In order to save time I would like to present my statement.

Mr. ANGELL. The statement will be received and incorporated in the record at this point.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Patton is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF BRYANT G. PATTON, OF APALACHICOLA, FLA., BEFORE THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON IMPROVEMENTS TO WATERWAYS IN APALACHICOLA BAY AND ST. GEORGE SOUND AT EASTPOINT, FLA. Mr. CHAIRMAN: My name is Bryant G. Patton, of Apalachicola, Fla. I represent Franklin County, in which Apalachicola Bay and Eastpoint are located, in the Florida State Legislature. I am grateful for this opportunity to appear before you to offer testimony which I earnestly hope will prove helpful to you in deciding to include the Apalachicola Bay projects described in House Document 156 of the 82d Congress, 1st Session, in the rivers and harbors omnibus bill upon which you are now working.

Since this portion of your hearing is devoted particularly to the Eastpoint project I will confine my remarks to that subject although I am intensely interested in the proposed cut across St. George Island as well as the small boat mooring basin, all of which have been recommended by the Chief of Engineers. The life of the seafood industry at Eastpoint, which as a very important and predominant segment of the economic life of Franklin county depends upon the dredging of this channel. At the present time, and for several years, there has been considerable shoaling adjacent to the north shore of St. George Sound where the fishhouses at Eastpoint are located. The controlling depth at low tide ranges from zero to 2 feet, making it necessary for fishermen to transport their catch to the shore by very small boats, or by wading. This is time consuming and very costly. Obviously, if we had the required water depth this operation would be greatly facilitated by permitting unloading right at the fishhouse docks. It would result in great savings to the fishermen and, in fact, keep most of them in business. With annual commerce in seafood alone amounting to from 8 to 12,000 tons you can readily understand the proportions of the problem with which our industry is confronted in handling seafood cargoes from boat to shore, and in damages to equipment from grounding on oyster bottom shoal waters.

Construction of this channel would result not only in economies in the present operations but would also result in sharply increased production of seafood. Larger boats could be used. There is, in addition, the party fishing industry to consider, and this is a large industry in Florida. At the present time it is not possible for the size boats required for this type of fishing to dock at Eastpoint. An adequate channel, such as has been recommended by the U. S. Engineer, would cause this industry to flourish. Although your action may not be based primarily on such a consideration, the fact remains that party fishing would contribute greatly to a healthy economic life for the people of Eastpoint and surrounding area.

It is my firm belief that the benefit-cost ratio reported by the Engineer in House Document 156 above referred to would be even greater today than it was

when the original survey was made. Consequently, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully urge your committeee's sympathetic consideration of our problem and express here the earnest hope that you can approve this worthy project in your authorization bill. We do not feel that restrictions previously imposed by the Bureau of the Budget should stand in light of present world circumstances. We need this project in our own private war against unemployment and economic starvation. Thank you.

Mr. PATTON. These projects have been entirely covered by Colonel Milne and Mr. Floyd, our State senator. On behalf of the people of Franklin County I want to express our deep appreciation to this committee for your kindness and the consideration with which you have given these projects your time and study. It is the lifeblood of my county and it means much to us.

I anticipate if these projects go through that we will have no unemployment down our way.

I do believe that our county will grow in the next 10 years so that this committee will be proud that they have had an opportunity to give us the kind assistance that you are giving us.

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Patton, we are very happy to have had your sincere

statement.

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

Mr. SIKES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Unless there are questions from the members of the committee that concludes our presentation. Mr. ANGELL. There are no further witnesses on this project ? Mr. SIKES. That is right, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ANGELL. Thank you very much.

That concludes the presentation on this project then.

(The statement of Senator Holland is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE

OF FLORIDA

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to file a statement in support of the modifications of the Federal project at East Point, Apalachicola Bay, Fla., recommended by the Corps of Engineers in House Document 156 of the 82d Congress. The first of the modifications includes a channel 6 feet deep, 100 feet wide, and about 6,000 feet in length, generally parallel to the shore just off East Point, and a connecting channel 6 feet deep and 100 feet wide from near its center to water of equal depth in the St. George Sound. This modification is extremely important to the seafood industry in this area, and it is estimated that it will eliminate about 75 percent of the annual repair costs of the large fleet of commercial fishing boats that normally base at East Point by permitting them to be tied up at their respective docks rather than being forced to anchor well offshore in deep water as is now the case. When anchored offshore, these fishing boats are often set adrift by squalls with consequent damage to their hulls. This channel would also permit the use of larger vessels which would allow more economical operations in this industry. This modification has a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.75 to 1, and I hope the committee will see fit to authorize it.

I also urge the committee to approve the second modification recommended by the engineers which consists of a small boat mooring basin 500 feet square and 9 feet deep, with a connecting channel 9 feet deep and 80 feet wide through Scipio Creek to the Apalachicola River. There is a dearth of sheltered areas in this vicinity for use by small fishing boats during the fierce storms which frequent this section of the country, and this basin will provide a welcomed refuge from these fierce disturbances since the nearest protective anchorage is several miles up the Apalachicola River, is inaccessible by land and has not been improved for navigation. The benefit-to-cost ratio of this modification is 1.46 to 1.

Mr. Chairman, the total construction cost of these modifications is only $98.800, with the small sum of $6,000 required annually for maintenance. I shall not

burden the record further at this time, but I do feel that there is ample justification for these projects and strongly urge the committee to give them favorable consideration.

ST. JOSEPH BAY, FLA.

Mr. ANGELL. The next project will be St. Joseph Bay, Fla.

Colonel Milne, may we have your report, please, at this point? Colonel MILNE. Mr. Chairman, the report on St. Joseph Bay, Fla., is contained in House Document No. 595 of the 81st Congress, second session, as authorized by the River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1945. The port of St. Joe is one of the large ports of Florida. It is located on the northwest coast of Florida about 115 miles east of Pensacola. The area surrounding the port is one primarily devoted to light and medium industry. The existing Federal project at Port St. Joe provides for a channel 32 feet in depth and 300 feet wide, extending across the bar and into the port proper. In addition, there has been provision made for a south channel 27 feet in depth and 200 feet wide, leading from the port, and a turning basin 32 feet in depth and 1,000 feed in width and 2,000 feet long.

In the year 1952 approximately 2,000,000 tons of commerce utilized this waterway. That commerce was predominantly petroleum and petroleum products. Local interests have indicated some difficulties with the existing Federal project and have asked specifically that consideration be given to increasing the depth of the present project from 32 feet to 36 feet or 37 feet. They have asked that provision be made for a jetty in front of the existing turning basin to reduce the wave action. They have also asked that the south channel be dredged to a deeper depth.

When those requests were made by the local interests the Federal Government had not completed the presently authorized Federal project. Since we have completed that project some of the requests of local interests are no longer applicable. For example, in the dredging of the present project we deposited a good portion of the spoil area in front of the turning basin and provided in effect an earth jetty. That has been adequate in reducing wave action in the present turning basin.

Likewise, the provision of a turning basin has made it unnecessary for the large oceangoing vessels to come out of the south channel. Instead they can turn within the turning basin and utilize the main ship channel as an exit. So the request of local interests for deepening this channel is also no longer applicable.

The Chief of Engineers made a very thorough study of this particular area and has come to the conclusion that modification of the existing project is economically justified. He recommends that the present Federal project be modified to provide an entrance channel 37 feet deep and 500 feet wide, gradually narrowing into a channel 400 feet wide, and then an inner channel of 35 feet in depth and 300 feet wide.

He has also recommended that provision be made within the turning basin for a channel 35 feet in depth and 250 feet wide.

Those recommendations were furnished to the State of Florida, which has indicated its concurrence. Likewise, they were referred to the Bureau of the Budget.