Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, may I have your permission to file in the record a telegram I just received from Mr. T. A. McDonald, who has the figures on the damage which has been done?

Mr. ANGELL. Without objection, the telegram will be received in the record.

(The telegram is as follows:)

Hon. CLARK W. THOMPSON,

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.:

VICTORIA, TEX., March 2, 1954.

Seadrift Harbor of Refuge would give protection in case of storms to over 200 boats representing an investment of more than $3 million. About 25 percent are pleasure craft and 75 percent are dredge shrimpers and fishing boats. No other harbor of refuge within radius of 60 miles in past 35 years. Six disastrous storms swept this area, viz: 1919, 1921, 1929, 1934, 1942, 1945. No record of losses in storms prior to 1934, 1942, and 1945. Storms caused $874,916 damage to boats. Number of boats increasing in this area each month due to drilling in bays for oil.

T. A. MCDONALD.

Mr. ANGELL. I notice that we have with us today Mr. Dale Miller, the executive vice president of the Intracoastal Canal Association of Louisiana and Texas.

Mr. Miller, we will be very happy to hear from you at this time.

STATEMENT OF DALE MILLER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE INTRACOASTAL CANAL ASSOCIATION OF LOUISIANA AND TEXAS

Mr. MILLER. My name is Dale Miller, executive vice president of the Intracoastal Canal Association of Louisiana and Texas. Like Congressman Thompson said, the explanation made by Colonel Milne of this project is very thorough and detailed. There is very little that I believe I should need to add.

I think it might be helpful if I oriented this project a little bit with reference to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. The Intracoastal Canal extends for a thousand miles, as you gentlemen know, from the west coast of Florida to the Mexican border. It has at this point the San Antonio Bay, which would be farther down the map here, at this point here, where it branches off at Seadrift, which is 7 miles from the intersection with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.

The enormous tonnage carried on that waterway in recent years has caused a development down there in the gulf coast area for the development of tributaries and feeders to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, which in fact will be inland extensions of low-cost water transportation.

With that in mind, Congress authorized a few years ago the Guada lupe River Canal to Victoria, which extends from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway a distance of 35 miles up to Victoria. At the same time there was authorized this side channel six-tenths of a mile in length with a little turning basin here at Seadrift.

For your information, the estimated cost of that entire project is $11 million, $6,500,000 of Federal funds and $4,500,000 of local participation.

As Colonel Milne explained, that project is authorized. This harbor of refuge is needed here to accommodate the considerable and

growing fishing fleet in that particular area. It will not be constructed if authorized, of course, until the present authorized project is constructed, because its harbor of refuge is a modification of this Guadalupe River project which has been authorized already.

As Congressman Thompson told you, the development of those industrial plants along that authorized channel will in itself cause considerable economic development of that area, which in turn will make this harbor of refuge project even more needed.

I think that is all I need to add, Mr. Chairman, to the presentation previously made.

Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, Mr. Miller.

Are there any questions of Mr. Miller from members of the committee?

(No response.)

Mr. ANGELL. If not, we thank you.

Have you any additional witnesses to be heard?

Mr. MILLER. No, sir. That completes our testimony.

Mr. ANGELL. If not, we will proceed to the next project.

LOS ANGELES AND LONG BEACH HARBORS, CALIF.

Mr. ANGELL. Without objection, we will take next the project at Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, Calif., House Document No. 161 of the 83d Congress, in view of the fact that our colleague, Mr. McDonough of California, the Congressman from that district, is here and has other engagements, we will hear him first; he had to leave so we will now hear the report of Colonel Milne on this project.

Colonel MILNE. Mr. Chairman, the report on Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors is contained in House Document 161 of the 83d Congress, 1st session, as authorized by resolution of the Rivers and Harbors Committee of the House of Representatives dated February 1, 1946.

I realize that we had rather extensive hearings on this project last summer, but I believe the committee might want to go over it briefly to refresh their memories. If that is your desire, I will cover it very briefly.

Mr. ANGELL. Very well.

Colonel MILNE. Los Angeles is, of course the center of an extremely large industrial area. The existing Federal project for the Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor consists of a series of outer breakwaters protecting the entire Long Beach-Los Angeles waterfront, and then an entrance channel 40 feet in depth and approximately 1,000 feet wide across the bar into Los Angeles Harbor. Then the channel shallows to a depth of about 35 feet, and the width varies from 1,000 feet to 400 feet. That channel extends into the harbor proper and. into the West Basin, and likewise up to the East Basin.

Mr. MACK. Where is Long Beach, Colonel?

Colonel MILNE. It is on the coast, southwest of the main center of Los Angeles.

In the year 1951 there were 24 million tons of commerce handled by the combined Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor. That commerce was predominantly petroleum. Local interests have indicated

they are having difficulties with the existing Federal project, and at a public hearing that was held in the area they recommended a number of improvements.

One of the things local interests requested that we considered is the provision of a ship channel from the West Basin to Laguna Dominguez. They requested that the West Basin be improved and that the shoal in the East Basin be removed. Also, local interests requested that consideration be given to removing a bridge at the entrance to the West Basin, and furthermore to the dredging of the Consolidated slip at the upper end of the East Basin channel.

The Chief of Engineers examined the requirements of the area very thoroughly and came to the conclusion that a number of the items that the local interests had requested were not economically justified. Specifically he found that a ship's channel to Laguna Dominguez was not economically justified. The Chief of Engineers did not feel that the improvement of the West Basin could be justified at this particular time, but he did feel that the shoal area at the East Basin should be removed, and recommended accordingly.

The recommendations of the Chief of Engineers were furnished to the State of California, and they indicated their concurrence..

Likewise, the Bureau of the Budget indicated that they had no objection to the submission of the project to the Congress.

Based on the project document the cost was estimated to be
Mr. ANGELL. Are those revised costs?

Colonel MILNE. The revised costs, based on the costs in the fall of 1953, are $1,202,500. The original project document cost was a Federal cost of $896,500, and a non-Federal cost of $306,000, for a total of $1,202,500. Apparently the revised costs based on the ball of 1953 figures are the same as the cost contained in the project document.

The annual charges total $47,600 and the benefit-cost ratio is 2.1 to 1. Included in those annual charges is an item of $5,000 for maintenance in addition to that already being spent at the Los Angeles Harbor. Mr. ANGELL. How much did you say the maintenance is, Colonel? Colonel MILNE. $5,000.

Mr. ANGELL. What is the non-Federal contribution?

Colonel MILNE. The non-Federal cost would be $306,000.

Items of local cooperation required are the furnishing of lands, easements, and rights-of-way; a suitable spoil-disposal area; hold and save the United States free from damages; provide and maintain at local expense adequate public terminals and transport facilities; make sewer and water supply and drainage and other utility changes; and remove and relocate the existing small-boat facilities in the East Basin; and disestablish the special anchorage area A-4 prior to the improvement of the East Basin.

Local interests have indicated a willingness to comply with those items of local cooperation.

As the committee knows, there has been recently completed adjacent to the channel in East Basin a very large and modern terminal. The existing channel is relatively narrow at that point, and adjacent to our channel is this large shoal area which is in about the center of the East Basin. That area has a depth of approximately 12 feet. It makes it extremely difficult for the large oceangoing vessels utilizing this new terminal to back out of their mooring slips.

Under exising circumstances the large carriers must back down the channel about a mile and a half to the nearest turning basin, where they can turn around and proceed out of Los Angeles Harbor. It not only causes extreme delay to those carriers, but it is a dangerous procedure. They can very easily strike other vessels in the channel and they can go aground and cause considerable damage to themselves and to other navigation interests.

In addition to those delays, because of the small channel and the shallow area adjacent thereto, there is an excessive pilot and tug charge for vessels proceeding into that area. The improvements we have recommended would eliminate both the delay to the carriers and eliminate to a large extent the excessive pilot and tug charges. We feel that the modification of the project along the lines recommended by the Chief of Engineers is economically justified.

I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that authorization of the project that is before you would enable the Corps of Engineers to improve the work remaining at East Basin, as well as maintaining it in the future. Mere approval of this document does not give any authority to pay back to the city of Los Angeles for any work that they have done already.

I might also say that the work they have done was in accordance with our plans, as drawn up by our district engineer at Los Angeles. Mr. ANGELL. The report does not, however, cover the repayment? Colonel MILNE. No, sir. The report was prepared and submitted to the Congress prior to the time this work was undertaken by the city.

Mr. ANGELL. Is it the position of the Army engineers that that is a matter of policy to be determined by the Congress?

Colonel MILNE. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANGELL. Are there any other instances where work has been done prior to authorization and carried out in accordance with the plans of the Army engineers, and where redress has been made?

Colonel MILNE. Yes, sir. Congress did that very thing in the last authorization bill, for a project in Florida at Lake Worth Inlet, where local interests, of necessity, went ahead, and dredged a channel recommended by the Corps of Engineers but not authorized by Congress. The Congress in the authorization bill placed specific language directing that that money be repaid.

Mr. ANGELL. Were these expenditures insured by the local people subsequent to our having hearings on this project?

Colonel MILNE. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANGELL. And that question was raised at that time, as I recall it, that local interests desired to get quick action and requested some action on the part of the Congress to enable them to do that, so that evenually they might be reimbursed for the funds which the Government would have to pay out anyway, if the project was carried out in accordance with the Army engineers' plans.

Colonel MILNE. That is correct.

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

Mr. MACK. Colonel Milne, was all of this work at the city of Los Angeles done in accordance with the plans of the Army engineers? Colonel MILNE. Yes, sir.

Mr. MACK. And if this work had not been done, would this facility for a terminal basin have been useless to the city, or largely so?

Colonel MILNE. It would not be useless, Mr. Mack, but its use would have been definitely hampered.

Mr. MACK. You speak of the local interests supplying a certain part of the cost. If we should authorize the proposal submitted by Mr. Perkins, will any of that local cost reduce the amount of $500,000, or would that apply purely to easements, rights-of-way, and spoil-disposal areas?

Colonel MILNE. Under the project document local interests are required to furnish lands and easements estimated to cost $306,000. That item would still be required.

Mr. ANGELL. That does not include the dollar expenditures, does it? Colonel MILNE. It does not include any dredging.

Mr. MACK. If the United States Army engineers find by their study that the city of Los Angeles expended $500,000 on this work, under the language that has been submitted we would be liable to return to the city of Los Angeles $500,000?

Colonel MILNE. Yes, sir.

Mr. MACK. That is all.

Mr. ANGELL. Are there any further questions of Colonel Milne? (No response.)

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

Our colleague, Representative Cecil King, of California, is interested in this project. I do not see him in the room at the moment. Without objection, he will be authorized to submit a statement for the record at this point, if he desires to do so.

His statement follows:

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, D. C., March 3, 1954.

Hon. HOMER D. ANGELL,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors,
Committee on Public Works,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. ANGELL: I am informed that at the hearing this morning on the omnibus bill covering projects approved by the Chief of Engineers, the matter of the improvement of East Basin of Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor, Calif., was considered by your subcommittee, and that although I was unable to be present, I was extended the courtesy of having my remarks appended to the record of the hearing.

Will you be kind enough to consider this letter as my endorsement of the language offered by Mr. C. N. Perkins, deputy city attorney, representing the Los Angeles Harbor Commission this date, which language is incorporated in the form of the bill, H. R. 3054, introduced by me February 16, 1953.

You will note that I have provided particularly for authorization of reimbursement to local interests for the actual cost of work done by them in the immediate and necessary dredging requirements of the East Basin, Los Angeles Harbor, in a sum not to exceed $500,000. It is estimated that $500,000 will cover the actual contract cost Los Angeles Harbor Department has paid out plus such engineering expenses preliminary to letting the dredging contract. This sum is exclusive of something over three hundred thousand dollars absorbed by the city of Los Angeles in providing rights-of-way, disposal area, and other charges incident to the dredging project.

Thanking you for your kindness, I am

Very sincerely,

CECIL R. KING.

Mr. ANGELL. Congressman McDonough, we will be glad to hear from you at this time.