RIVERS AND HARBORS OMNIBUS BILL TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 1954 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., in room 1302, New House Office Building, Hon. Homer D. Angell (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. ANGELL. The committee will come to order, please. HOLLAND HARBOR AND BLACK LAKE (LAKE MACATAWA), MICH. Mr. ANGELL. We have for consideration this morning as the first one on the agenda, the Holland Harbor and Black Lake project contained in House Document 282 of the 83d Congress. I note the presence of our colleague, Gerald R. Ford, Congressman from Michigan, who is very much interested in this project. Congressman, if you desire to be heard first and then leave, you may do so. Otherwise we will hear from the Corps of Engineers. Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I believe the procedure that the committee follows of having the Army engineers testify initially is desirable from our point of view. At the conclusion of Colonel Milne's testimony I would like to make a statement. In addition, I have two witnesses here who would likewise wish to make statements. Mr. ANGELL. We will be very glad to comply with your wishes. Colonel Milne, you may then proceed to make your report, if you will, on this project. STATEMENT OF COL. W. D. MILNE, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Colonel MILNE. Mr. Chairman, the report on Holland Harbor and Black Lake is contained in House Document 282 of the 83d Congress, 2d session, as authorized by a resolution of the House Public Works Committee dated April 13, 1948. Holland Harbor is located on the east shore of Lake Michigan, about 95 miles north and east of the city of Chicago. Holland is a city devoted primarily to industry. The existing Federal project for Holland Harbor provides for an entrance channel 22 feet in depth and from 110 to 300 feet wide, from water of that depth in Lake Michigan, and then narrowing down to a channel 21 feet in depth and approximately 110 to 140 feet wide, extending across Lake Macatawa for about 5 miles and ending in a turning basin at the upper end of Lake Macatawa. In addition to the channel improvement there has been provided a breakwater system at the entrance of the channel. In 1952 approximately 247,000 tons of commerce were handled over this improved waterway. The commerce was predominantly coal, petroleum, and cement products. Local interests have indicated a difficulty in navigating the federally improved project. Specifically they point out these factors: The entrance channel 300 feet in width is too narrow; the existing breakwater system should be connected to the shore; the channel is extremely narrow and tortuous and consideration should be given to deepening and widening that channel in the revetted section. They further point out that the channel ends below several docks that are being utilized, and they request that the channel be extended upstream some 2,600 feet. The Chief of Engineers has considered the requirements of the area in considerable detail and has investigated the various recommendations made by local interests. He does not believe that deepening the entrance channel is economically justified, nor does he find any reason for connecting the breakwater system to the shore. He does believe, however, that improvements to the existing channel are warranted and recommends that the revetted section be widened at the bend to provide for a channel of 235 feet in width by the removal of the existing south revetment and replacing it some 110 feet farther south and then dredging out that land." He also recommends tha the channel be extended for 2,600 feet upstream to provide a channel approximately 110 feet wide and 21 feet deep, and that the existing turning basin be widened by 150 feet and flared into the proposed channel extension. Those recommendations of the Chief of Engineers have been furnished to the State of Michigan and they indicated their general concurrence. Likewise they have been referred to the Bureau of the Budget. I would like to read from the document on page 3 an extract of the comments of the Bureau of the Budget. I am reading from a letter dated July 27, 1953: Neither the report, nor other information made available to us by the Corps of Engineers, supports the assumption that the existing revetment along the southern side of the entrance channel into Lake Macatawa will need complete rebuilding in the near future. In addition, realization of average annual benefits of $2,000 for damages prevented through avoidance of collision appears doubtful on the basis of information contained in the report and supplementary data presented to this office. In view of these factors, we conclude that the recommended improvement in the entrance channel into Lake Macatawa is not economically justified at this time. With respect to the recommended channel and turning basin in Black River, it is noted that the estimated benefits consist almost entirely of anticipated savings in the cost of transporting coal to the municipal powerplant. On the basis of information contained in the report, however, local participation in this feature of the project amounts to less than 2 percent of the average annual costs and no cash contribution is required. It has been the policy of the United States to require a proportionately greater local participation in navigation improvements whose benefits are expected to accrue to a single organization. The report does not contain justification to warrant an exception to this policy for the improvement of the Black River. You are advised that, while there would be no objection to the submission of the report to the Congress, for the reasons stated above, authorization of the recommended modification of the existing project for Holland Harbor, Mich., would not be in accord with the program of the President. Based on the costs contained in the original House document, we estimated that the cost of the improvements recommended by the Corps of Engineers would be $560,600 Federal cost and $37,400 nonFederal cost, for a total of $598,000. Those costs revised to the fall of 1953 show a Federal cost of $574,400, and a non-Federal cost of $37,400, for a total of $611,800. Based on the revised costs, the annual charges are $17,060, of which $5,700 represents an estimated increased maintenance cost. Again based on the revised costs, the benefit-cost ratio for part A is 1.47 to 1, and part B is 1.84 to 1. Mr. ANGELL. Will you repeat those again, please, Colonel? Colonel MILNE. The Federal cost, as revised, is $574,400. The nonFederal cost is $37,400, for a total of $611,800. The annual charges, based on the revised cost Mr. ANGELL. $5,700 is the increased maintenance? Mr. ANGELL. What is the benefit-cost ratio? Colonel MILNE. The benefit-cost ratio for part A is 1.47 to 1, and part B is 1.84 to 1. I should like to go into detail a little more on parts A and B. Colonel MILNE. Part A consists of widening the revetted section of the channel. The present project provides for a channel through the revetted section of about 110 feet to 120 feet in width. On both banks there has been constructed a revetment section to hold the banks from sloughing into the channel. There is a very sharp turn near the entrance of the revetted section and the lake carriers coming into the channel have experienced extreme difficulty in maneuvering through that particular area. In periods of high winds the ships tend to blow into the revetted section, and do damage both to our structure and to the ships themselves. We believe that by widening this section to 235 feet we will provide a channel that will be reasonably safe for navigation and that will eliminate a great deal of the damage now experienced. We figure approximately 80 percent of all the delay that is now experienced by the carriers entering this harbor would be eliminated by the improvement of this particular section. Those delays, plus the elimination of the damage to the revetment section itself we believe amply justifies the provision of this recommended improvement. Part B of our recommendation pertains to the extension of the existing channel for some 2,600 feet upstream, and also for widening the existing anchorage basin. At the present time the upstream portion of this channel has been dredged by local interests and has been maintained by them to about 17 feet in depth, and a channel width of some 70 feet to 90 feet. They have done that at their own expense. However, the ships that utilize the upstream portion of this harbor draw in excess of 17 feet. We have estimated that approximately all of the ships that use this area must reduce their cargo about 20 percent. If a channel 21 feet in depth is provided in that particular area the cargo ships will be able to come into the harbor with a full load. Based on the traffic that is existing in the area the deepening of that channel to 21 feet would provide benefits, in our opinion, in excess of the annual charges of the improvement. In addition to the channel deepening, the provision of the wider turning basin would eliminate a number of the delays now experienced by ships that under present circumstances have difficulty in backing downstream into the existing relatively small turning basin. So on the basis of our analysis we believe that the improvement in the revetted section to widen the channel and replace the revetment farther to the south is amply justified. Likewise we believe that the deepening and extension of the channel above the present limits of the Federal project, coupled with the widening of the existing turning basin, is justified. Mr. ANGELL. Colonel Milne, what is the distance from the entrance at Lake Michigan to the upper end of the improvement? Colonel MILNE. Approximately 6 miles. Mr. ANGELL. Is the major portion of the work dredging, Colonel? Colonel MILNE. The major portion of the maintenance today is dredging and repair of the existing breakwater system. Mr. ANGELL. Judge Trimble, have you any questions of Colonel Milne? Mr. TRIMBLE. No questions. Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, Colonel. Are there any other questions? Congressman Ford, we are happy to have you return to our committee and the committee will be pleased to hear from you. You may call any witnesses that you so desire after your statement. STATEMENT OF HON. GERALD R. FORD, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Having served on this committee for 2 years, and being associated with members of this committee for that period, I am deeply appreciative of the opportunity to appear before the committee and explain the need and necessity for the authorization of this project. Mr. ANGELL. May the Chair say that the committee was very sorry to lose you from our committee. You were a very valuable member, but we realize you have a most important position where you are now. Mr. FORD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Having been on this committee for 2 years, and having been a member of the Civil Functions Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations for 2 years, I am very cognizant of the difficulties and problems that the Congress as a whole has had, and those two committees in particular have had, in trying to provide for the necessary river, harbor and flood control development of the Nation as a whole. We have perhaps neglected the development of our rivers and harbors for justifiable reasons during certain emergency periods, but now I think we have to look forward to an expansion of these facilities in the months and years ahead if we are to keep abreast of the overall development and demands of the country. From my experiences on these two committees I developed a philosophy which I think is sound, and it is partially expressed in the Bu reau of the Budget's recommendations, namely, that local interests should do what they can to help in the financing of these projects. I will concur without any hesitancy with the recommendations of the Army engineers that these two segments of this particular project are worthwhile. Certainly the benefit-cost ratio of part A, which is 1.47 to 1, and part B, which is 1.84 to 1, would indicate that the Government would make a good investment. However, the urgency of the project, or at least a certain part of it, does perhaps necessitate a local interest contribution over and above what the Army engineers proposed. As a result I have contacted the local people in the city of Holland and pointed out the problem. I am glad to report that they are here today, duly authorized to make an offer to the Federal Government of a cash amount to help finance the project, at least part B. As Colonel Milne has shown in his testimony, the outer part, that is, part A, is necessary if we are to get the lake carriers into the channel and up where they can unload and do it economically. I know from my own experiences-I was there last fall and toured the area very carefully-that this revetment here is in very bad shape. Mr. ANGELL. What draft of vessels use the waterway there? Mr. FORD. What draft? Mr. ANGELL. Yes. Mr. FORD. I think they would be around 18 to 20 feet. I might add this-and this was not mentioned by Colonel Milneat the present time there is a Coast Guard station right here. The Coast Guard station is in horrible condition. As a matter of fact, they have decided to close it because of two factors: One, the lack of funds to maintain it; and, two, they want to build a new station over here and they will not go ahead and rehabilitate the existing station until they know what the Army engineers are going to do. If the Army engineers are going to cut this revetment back it means they will have to abandon their existing station. If the Army engineers were to devise a different plan, then it might be wise for the Coast Guard to go ahead and rehabilitate their present station or build a new one on the present location. They have acquired property over here and they are more or less standing by until the Army engineers are told what they can do in reference to part A of this project. I am confident that based on the benefit-cost ratio you would advocate the inclusion of part A of the project, in spite of the Bureau of the Budget's nonconcurrence. Specifically, however, I would like to talk about part B, which is inland. Part B on the original costs set forth in the document before us was $182,000 as the Federal contribution. The local interests, as usual, have agreed to go along with the regular requirements of providing land and disposal areas, and so forth. In addition, the city of Holland, in combination with private interests, is prepared today to submit a program of contribution, which is approximately this: They will pay up to 25 percent of the $182,000, but no more than $45,500. Mr. ANGELL. Then that exceeds the amount of non-Federal contribution reported by Colonel Milne? Mr. FORD. That is a point, Mr. Chairman, I am not too clear about. I would like to check what that additional amount was. 39263-54-vol. 1-34 |