A cargo valued at $214 million and a vessel valued at $1,200,000 were a total loss. Fortunately no crew members were lost. The losses sustained by this one vessel and cargo alone would more than pay for the initial dredging being asked for by the engineers for this project. It cannot be too greatly emphasized that a grounding in heavy weather at the channel mouth could very easily set the stage for a catastrophic loss of crew personnel, vessel, and cargo. Even short of this, however, repair costs and incapacitation of vessels due to even a slight grounding of a vessel can mean serious losses to their owners. The amount involved in this one appropriation asked for would just about pay for the cost of the accident in the Drexel Victory case. That is a very sharp comparison to be made when the benefits of the project are examined. Marine underwriters have long recognized the hazards to navigation attendant upon crossing the Columbia River Bar. At one time restrictive warranties were added to policies on ships and cargoes using the Columbia River. If something isn't done to reduce the present hazardous situation, the underwriters might be forced to reinstate such warranties. This would be a serious setback for the ports of the Columbia River in their quest for competitive cargoes. SUMMARY In summarizing, I wish to emphasize that the support of all ship lines which make use of the Columbia River is 100 percent for this project. Any further delay will be costly, not only to us but to the ports and shippers we serve. Even if this committee acted today, and the Appropriations Committee acted next week, it would take 3 years before dredging activities could be completed and the channel could be declared safe for navigation. We are convinced that the Federal funds expended for this project will more than be repaid in safety for ship and crew, peace of mind for shipmasters and pilots, and direct monetary savings for ship operators. In our view, a continuation of the presently critically dangerous conditions at the Columbia River Bar is unthinkable. Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, Mr. Dewey, for that very significant statement. I am sure the committee will be very glad to have it. The other witness is Mr. Hugh S. Williamson, representing the Association of American Shipowners. STATEMENT OF HUGH S. WILLIAMSON, VICE PRESIDENT, Mr. WILLIAMSON. Mr. Chairman, my name is Hugh S. Williamson. I am an attorney and vice president of the Association of American Shipowners, in charge of their Washington office. We are a dry-cargo fleet and strongly support the deepening of the channel at the mouth of the Columbia River to 48 feet for the very excellent reasons presented so vividly by Captain Ash and others. I do not want to burden the committee with any further encroachment on their time. I have a statement that I would like to submit, and also a list of the companies for whom I speak. Seven of them make regular use of the channel and have almost the same difficulties described this morning. Mr. ANGELL. The statement will be received and incorporated in the record at this point. We are very glad to have had you here, Mr. Williamson. Mr. WILLIAMSON. Thank you. (The statement of Mr. Williamson is as follows:) STATEMENT OF HUGH S. WILLIAMSON, VICE PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN SHIP OWNERS PROPOSAL FOR IMPROVING THE MOUTH OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER, OREG., AND WASH. My name is Hugh S. Williamson. I am an attorney at law and am vice president of the Association of American Ship Owners, which has offices at 90 Broad Street, New York, N. Y., and 1621 K Street NW., Washington, D. C. Our association is composed of some of the oldest and best established companies operating American-flag ships. A number of them make regular use of the channel at the mouth of the Columbia River. Our association appreciates very much this opportunity to submit our views on the proposal to improve this channel. The record shows that maintaining a channel of 40-foot depth at lowest low water and at least a half mile wide at the mouth of the river, was taken under advisement in 1899 and authorized by the River and Harbor Act of March 3, 1905. An entrance channel of 40-foot depth and one-half mile wide has existed since 1919. Our association supports the recommendation of the Board of Engineers, Department of the Army, for a channel with depth of 48 feet at mean lower low water and a width of one-half mile. Today's ships are longer and have load drafts several feet deeper than the ships of 50 years ago. Both these factors have a direct relation to the depth at which a ship will "sound" in heavy seas. The experience of the shipowners shows that when high waves are running a modern vessel may strike bottom at depths exceeding their draft by 15 or more feet. There are 8 times as many ships with drafts of 28 feet or over transiting this channel today than was the case some years ago. There are approximately 3 times as many ships and 10 times the tonnage today as when a 40-foot channel was thought to be adequate. That the channel today is inadequate in the light of the size and character of the ships that use it is clearly indicated by the recorded cases of grounding of commercial vessels. The United States Coast Guard reports five dry-cargo vessels grounding in the entrance to the river since January 1, 1947. All were caused by "sounding," 4 of them in depths greater than 40 feet. In addition two groundings of tank ships since 1950 were also caused by "sounding." One of these was a total loss. Increased depths in the channel substantially reduce this hazard. Shipowners also report that in cases where there is no grounding, but where the master has reason to believe his vessel has touched bottom, it has resulted in expensive but necessary hull inspection to determine the extent of the damage that occurred. Apart from our desire to insure a maximum of safety to crew, cargo and ship, there is an additional economic reason for the support of this proposal by shipowners. There is a relatively long season of storms on the coast in this vicinity, extending from October to April. These local storms, as well as the storms at sea, cause a swell over the bar which makes the crossing hazardous. At these times the bar pilots are frequently compelled to hold the ships inside or outside, as the case may be, until there is smoother water. The amount of time lost in this way is very substantial and this adds a substantial item of additional cost to the voyage. Loss of time for the same reason is often incurred when a captain receives information about sea conditions at the river's mouth and finds it expedient to reduce speed so as to arrive at the entrance during high-tide conditions and when the seas may have become more calm. This again adds to the operator's costs. In the interests of safety at sea, the protection of property, and a more econominal operation, our association favors the modification of the present project to provide a 48-foot channel. Mr. ANGELL. That concludes the personal witnesses, I believe. Are there any additional witnesses to be heard on this project? (No response.) Mr. ANGELL. If not, as chairman of the committee in behalf of the committee I want to thank you gentlemen of the Northwest for your very excellent presentation that you have made to the committee, and for the very fine report by General Itschner, who is so familiar with the project. I am sure the committee will consider very carefully the entire record and come, I hope, to a proper decision in the matter. If that is all we will proceed to the next project, but before we do, I have 2 telegrams, 1 dated February 27, 1954, addressed to me from Clarence Short, in favor of the project; and 1 dated March 4, 1954, addressed to me from the American Merchant Marine Institute. Without objection, they will be included in the record at this point. (The telegrams referred to are as follows:) Hon. HOMER S. ANGELL, Chairman, NEW YORK, N. Y., March 4, 1954. Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors, House Committee on Public Works, House Office Building, Washington, D. C.: The American Merchant Marine Institute, Inc., a trade association composed of 63 American-flag shipping companies in the offshore trades strongly supports the views of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and the Chief of Engineers expressed in House Document 249 concerning the deepening of the channel across the bar at the entrance of the Colombia River. We have been informed of the views to be expressed before your committee by representatives of the Pacific American Tankship Association and the Pacific American Steamship Association and fully concur with their statements. We strongly urge that the proposed Colombia River improvement be authorized by Congress. In view of the limited time available to make an appearance before your committee, it is requested that opportunity be granted for filing a supplemental statement expressing in full the views of the Institute for the record. R. J. BAKER, Secretary, American Merchant Marine Institute, Inc. ASTORIA, OREG., February 27, 1954. Hon. HOMER ANGELL, Congressman from Oregon, House Office Building, Washington, D. C.: Respectfully request your support to committee and bill providing funds for 48-foot bar at mouth of Colombia River. This development is not in opposition to an economy Congress nor is it pork barrel program for a favored district as it means an expanded economy to the entire Northwest, the whole Nation, and this site, due to making possible the now larger, deeper ships to enter Columbia River and serving all ports on that river, especially Portland where most interior commodities are assembled as imports and exports from points as far back as Montana. Many ships plus cargoes are now diverted by their owners in their home offices to other ports due to bar conditions. Also confronted with costly delays when ships are forced to stand by on arrival or departure at bar due to present condition of bar. This is the 10th year this district has been working for this improvement which means additional business to hundreds of firms and thousands of workers. CLARENCE S. SHORT. We have a statement on the Columbia River at the mouth from Senator Magnuson which, without objection, will be included in the record at this point, as follows: STATEMENT ON COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH BY SENATOR WARREN G. MAGNUSON Mr. CHAIRMAN: On February 8 of this year, I introduced S. 2915 in the Senate to authorize the modification of the existing project for the Columbia River at the mouth, Oregon and Washington, in order to improve facilities for navigation. I did this because I believe it essential that the work be authorized for construction during this session of Congress. Your committee is familiar, I am sure, with the Pacific Northwest's greatest natural asset-the Columbia River. The Federal Government has a large investment in the river-and investment to improve navigation, create hydroelectricity, control floods, and irrigate desert lands. Each dollar invested in the river has been returned multiplied many times to the people of the area and the Nation. The development of the area, industrially and agriculturally, has resulted in a large growth in shipping in the Columbia River. Also, larger ships with increased draft are using the river. Because of the inadequacy of the present entrance to the Columbia from the ocean, ships are caused costly delays and subjected to additional hazards. These present a serious handicap to shipping and commercial interests of all ports and communities on the Columbia River. There are 21 port districts between the mouth of the Columbia and the point where the Snake flows into it 325 miles away. These communities have made large investments in terminal facilities which handle a steadily increasing amount of tonnage. Great quantities of petroleum, mostly inbound; and agricultural, forest and mineral products, outbound, pass through the mouth of the river into off-shore trade. The Corps of Engineers recommended that a channel of suitable alinement and a depth of 48 feet, over a width on one-half mile is necessary for the safety and convenience of present shipping and that the benefits which will accrue to established navigation fully justify this improvement. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I respectively urge your committee to include this Columbia River project in this year's rivers and harbors bill. BELLINGHAM HARBOR, WASH. Mr. ANGELL. We will proceed to the next project, which is Bellingham Harbor, Wash., House Document 558 of the 82d Congress, in which our colleague, Mr. Jack Westland of Washington, is very much interested. We see that Congressman Westland is present. If it is agreeable to you, Mr. Westland, we will have the report of General Itschner first. Mr. WESTLAND. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I prefer to have General Itschner make his statement first and I will summarize my statement afterward. Mr. ANGELL. Very well. General Itschner, you may proceed, if you are ready. STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. E. C. ITSCHNER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY-Resumed General ITSCHNER. We have for the consideration of the committee a project at Bellingham Harbor, Wash. This is a review of reports on Bellingham Harbor, Wash., requested by a resolution of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, House of Representatives, adopted on August 30, 1944. This report is published as House Document 558 of the 82d Congress, 2d session. Bellingham Harbor is located on Puget Sound, approximately 90 miles north of Seattle, Wash. Bellingham is a city of 34,000 population. Its principal industries are forest products, which are manufactured into lumber and plywood; fish canning; the receipt of agricultural products from the surrounding country; and a cement mill. In addition to that there is, of course, a considerable quantity of shipping. There is a pulp mill in town and some furniture is manufactured in the city. With respect to commerce during 1952 there were 1,207,000 tons shipped, of which forestry products (wood and paper) were 912,000 tons and petroleum products 164,000 tons. The cost to the Federal Government of new work accomplished so far is $200,000, consisting of two channels completely independent from each other going out into the deep water of Bellingham Bay and Puget Sound. The first of these is Whatcom Creek Waterway, 26 feet deep for the outer portion of 3,800 feet and 18 feet deep for the inner 1,300 feet; and Squalicum Creek Waterway, which is also 26 feet deep. In addition to these waterways there is a small boat basin largely constructed and maintained with local funds. At the present time this small boat basin is bounded on the southeast by a rock breakwater. It is bounded on the south by another rock breakwater, and bounded on the northwest by a pile breakwater. There are several floats in the basin and the inner portion of this small-boat harbor has been dredged to minus 12 feet by local interests. The present proposal is entirely one of enlarging the existing smallboat basin. It is proposed to extend the breakwater constructed formerly by local interests which is on the southeast side of the smallboat basin, out into Bellingham Bay. It is also proposed to construct at Federal expense another rock breakwater which will bound the new boat basin on the southwest, and on the northwest leaving a gap or entrance channel 12 feet deep between this breakwater and the one which is on the southeast; and also leaving a chanel 12 feet deep between this breakwater and the existing wharf, which is to the north. The cost of the proposed work is, for new construction by the Corps of Engineers Mr. ANGELL. General, are those revised figures you are giving? General ITSCHNER. I will segregate them, sir. Mr. ANGELL. Are they revised figures? General ITSCHNER. They are revised, current figures. The cost as of September 1953 for new work to be done by the Corps of Engineers is $1,366,650, and by the Coast Guard for navigation aids $26,800, for a total of $1,393,450. The non-Federal contribution would be $502,500, for a total cost of the entire project of $1,895,950. The local interests would provide the following cooperation: The usual provisions about furnishing without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way and spoil-disposal areas. They would hold and save the United States free from damages; they would remove the timber-pile portion of the existing breakwater on the northwest which would extend beyond the proposed rock dike; they would dredge the basin at their expense to minus 12 feet where required. The area that is required is shown in B on this chart and |