There has been additional emphasis placed on the need for this project by the discussion concerning dynamite unloading in Honolulu Harbor. The normal consumption of dynamite in the Territory of Hawaii ranges between 800 and 1,000 tons per year. Presently, dynamite is unloaded at the Dillingham pier 33 terminal, which is closer to the industrial district of Honolulu than is desired. As an interim measure, the harbor board is attempting to obtain the use of Berth 9 of the marginal wharf on Sand Island. Berth 9 is the Ewa-end marginal wharf berth and would be some distance further from Honolulu's industrial district.

However, the ultimate development and the only adequately safe location will be a proposed dynamite wharf alongside this second entrance channel in the general vicinity of the marking on the map "Station 58+50" but just outside of the channel itself. The specific construction of that berth and its attendant dredging is being covered by a report which is in the area engineer office at Fort Armstrong at the present time. A rear entrance channel, however, is a necessary element for a proper use of the dynamite anchorage. This is not the sole need, but it adds one additional argument for the construction of the second entrance channel.

Sincerely yours,

BEN E. NUTTER,

Superintendent of Public Works.

TERRITORY OF HAWAII, SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION No. 82

J. R. 20-Joint Resolution Relating to Harbor Improvements, Honolulu Harbor Whereas a second entrance to Honolulu Harbor is of vital importance to shipping entering the port of Honolulu; and

Whereas the United States Corps of Engineers has approved provision for a second entrance to Honolulu Harbor at the Kapalama end of said harbor; and Whereas work on the project can commence without delay following approval of the work and appropriation of the necessary funds by the Congress: Now, therefore

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii:

SECTION 1. The Congress of the United States is respectfully requested to approve the project and urged to include in the current river and harbor development appropriation bill an item for providing a second entrance to Honolulu Harbor.

SEC. 2. Duly certified copies of this joint resolution shall be forwarded to the President of the Senate of the Congress of the United States, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, and to the Delegate to Congress from Hawaii.

SEC. 3. This joint resolution shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved this 1st day of May A. D. 1953.

SAMUEL WILDER KING, Governor of the Territory of Hawaii. Mr. FARRINGTON. The resolution, of course, also urges the construction of the harbor, or the second entrance to the harbor.

In order to save the time of the committee, I will ask that the statement that sets forth my point of view be incorporated at this point in the record.

Mr. ANGELL. Without objection your statement will be received. (The prepared statement of Mr. Farrington is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF J. R. FARRINGTON BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the inclusion in the rivers and harbors bill of the construction of a second entrance to Honolulu Harbor.

This project was approved and referred to the Congress by the Secretary of the Army on October 5, 1950, in House Document No. 717 of the 81st Congress.

Honolulu Harbor provides the port facilities for the Island of Oahu and for the major portion of shipping in the Territory. The existing entrance is congested and it has been desired for many years to provide a second entrance to the harbor

in order to take care of the amount of shipping which goes in and out of this harbor daily. It is recommended that a second entrance 35 feet deep and 400 feet wide for 5,850 feet, and then 1,000 feet wide for 4,150 feet wide be installed. The project also calls for the construction of a pontoon or some type of drawbridge. As originally recommended by the Board of Engineers it would cost $2,380,000 for construction and $5,000 annually for maintenance.

The Territory is to provide all lands and easements necessary and soil disposal areas for construction and maintenance of the project. The Territory will take title to the proposed drawbridge after construction and maintain and operate it. I understand that the present cost of construction is estimated to be $3,022,000, but the maintenance of $5,000 annually remains the same.

I wish to submit for the record a copy of Joint Resolution 20, adopted by the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii and approved by Gov. Samuel W. King on May 1, 1953, requesting that this project be approved. I also wish to submit a letter from the superintendent of public works, Ben E. Nutter, pointing out the importance of this project. Mr. Nutter states that this second entrance is very important because of the dynamite-unloading in Honolulu Harbor. If this new entrance is provided it is proposed to construct a dynamite wharf which will place the unloading of dynamite farther away from the industrial district of Honolulu. This is a Territorial project, but is dependent on the construction of the second entrance to Honolulu Harbor recommended by the Board of Engineers.

Mr. FARRINGTON. We strongly support the position taken by the Corps of Engineers. We believe the time has come to proceed with this project. This is one of the projects delayed by the Korean war, and the Korean war, as nothing else, demonstrated the vital importance of developing the harbor facilities of Honolulu.

Mr. ANGELL. Delegate Farrington, we are happy to have had you with us. Thank you for your statement. Now we will hear from General Itschner on this project.

General ITSCHNER. Mr. Chairman, we have the Honolulu Harbor project which is a report on a review of reports on Honolulu Harbor, Hawaii, requested by a resolution of the Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, adopted on April 22, 1947.

The report is published as House Document No. 717, 81st Congress, 2d session.

The population of Honolulu is 269,000. The population of Oahu, which is the island on which it is located, is 360,000. The industries in that area are largely those related to crops raised on the land, and sugar and molasses and coffee and pineapple, and seafood from the

ocean.

The Harbor of Honolulu had a commerce of 3,105,000 tons in 1952, of which petroleum was 1,005,000 and fruits 650,000 tons.

There are located in the harbor over 40 piers and a large concrete wharf 470 feet long, and a timber wharf, 2,600 feet long. A great many of these facilities are owned by the Federal Government and a good many more by the Territory. The figures are 7 piers, the concrete wharf and timber wharf are owned by the Federal Government and 13 piers are owned by the Territory.

Because of the rather restricted entrance to Honolulu Harbor, which is 40 feet deep but only 500 feet wide and about 4,000 feet long, it is desired by local interests to provide another entrance and exit to this harbor.

During World War II an effort was initiated to construct such an entrance, but it was abandoned, and as the war went on it was felt it was not needed at that time. It is proposed to construct a channel generally 400 feet wide into the north end of Honolulu Harbor, to

the north of Sand Island, which is Government owned. At the present time there is a causeway from Sand Island to the mainland, and it is proposed to replace that causeway with a bridge. It will either be a drawbridge or more likely a swing bridge, and it is proposed to turn over that bridge to the Territory for operation after completion.

Mr. ANGELL. What would be the length of that bridge, General? General ITSCHNER. The entire distance is 400 feet. The span would have to be great enough to clear at least 200 feet. The cost of that project is estimated to be $1,230,000 for dredging and $1,792,000 for the construction of the bridge, or a total Federal cost, less navigation aids, or $3,022,000 at current prices. Navigation aids are estimated to cost $44,500 for a total Federal cost of $3,066,500.

There will be no local costs, and no local contribution. The maintenance of the harbor at the present time is $35,000. This project would add $6,200 to the maintenance annually. The benefit-cost ratio would be 1.4 to 1.

Mr. ANGELL. What was the annual maintenance, General?

General ITSCHNER. The annual maintenance now is $35,000. It is estimated that this will add $6,200 to that.

This project has been concurred in by the Territory of Hawaii and by the various Federal agencies concerned, and the Bureau of the Budget.

Mr. ANGELL. Are there any questions of General Itschner in regard to this project?

(No response.)

Mr. ANGELL. If not, we thank you, General. I believe that concludes the testimony on this project. If so, the committee will stand adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 11:35 a. m., the subcommittee adjourned.)

RIVERS AND HARBORS OMNIBUS BILL

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 1954

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10: 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.

We have for consideration this morning a project known as Erie Harbor, Pa. Our colleague, Representative Kearns, of Pennsylvania, is very much interested in this project and I want to say that those of us on the committee have a very high regard for our colleague, Congressman Kearns. He has been with us a long time and he certainly is always on the job looking out for the interests of his district. I am sure that the committee is very happy to have him with us this morning.

I note we have a large delegation here interested in this project and we hope there will be time to hear all of those who desire to be heard. I note also we have for hearing the Presque Isle Peninsula project at Erie, Pa., which is a beach erosion project, and the first one that we will take up this session. So that we will give that special consideration by reason of that fact.

First, however, we will hear the Erie Harbor project.

ERIE HARBOR, PA.

Mr. ANGELL. If it is agreeable to you, Congressman Kearns, we will have the report of the Corps of Army Engineers on the project first. If that is agreeable, Colonel Allen, we will be very happy to hear you at this time.

STATEMENT OF COL. J. U. ALLEN, CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY-Resumed

Colonel ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, the authority for the review of reports on Erie Harbor, Pa., is contained in a resolution of the House Committee on Public Works dated March 15, 1949.

Erie Harbor is located on the south shore of Lake Erie up in the northeast corner about 78 miles west of Buffalo Harbor, N. Y. It has some 220 industries that are centered in or around the town of Erie. It is an important industrial center with the manufacture of iron and steel products being most important.

During the last 2 years of record there have been approximately 7 million tons of commerce that have used the project at Erie Harbor.

The present project at Erie consists of an entrance channel through the harbor 25 feet deep, and a channel 25 feet deep up into the ore dock. There is another basin and channel authorized to a 23-foot depth which has never been completed.

Mr. BECKER. Pardon me, Colonel. Could you just detail and point out those two channels running east and west?

Colonel ALLEN. Yes, sir. This channel is the entrance channel 25 feet deep, varying from 300 to 500 feet in width. There is another channel in here indicated in dark 25 feet deep and 600 feet wide up to the ore dock indicated in gray to the north of the green.

A 23-foot deep project has been authorized but has not been completed.

Local interests are desirous of increasing the width of this channel into the ore dock from its present 600-foot width to 1,200 feet wide, and a depth of 25 feet. A great number of the ore carriers are in excess of 500 feet in length, and in order to have access to the ore docks and to be able to anchor in all conditions of weather and wind so that they will not swing into the bank, it is desirable to have a full radius of a turning circle for a ship being in excess of 500 feet in length. So they are desirous of increasing the width of this channel to the ore dock from its present 600 feet to 1,200 feet, with the 25-foot depth. Mr. BECKER. That is the only thing there is to this project?

Colonel ALLEN. Yes, sir. That is all that local interests have requested and which has been recommended.

The cost of the plan based on October 1953 prices is $174,000, with annual charges of $6,100, and annual benefits of $11,100.

The benefit-cost ratio is 1.82 to 1.

The report has been referred to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and concurrence was received from Pennsylvania.

The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of the report to Congress.

The degree of local cooperation is the usual hold-and-save clause with respect to claims and damages due to work and maintenance.

The Board of Engineers and Chief of Engineers recommend adoption of this project.

Mr. MACK. Have you completed your statement, Colonel Allen? Colonel ALLEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MACK. You said the chief industry of the area is iron and steel. Does this port receive its ore from Duluth?

Colonel ALLEN. The ore is received from Duluth. The people from Erie can confirm that.

Mr. MACK. Of what draft are the barges that use this waterway? Colonel ALLEN. They are not barges, but are the usual lake ore

steamer.

Mr. MACK. How much water do they draw?

Colonel ALLEN. Our information is that the largest ore carriers draw 27 feet, Mr. Mack.

Mr. MACK. Is this channel deep enough to carry them fully loaded? Colonel ALLEN. No, sir. They will still have to go in partially light. Mr. MACK. What is the situation at Duluth? Is that a shallow channel where the boats cannot leave Duluth fully loaded?