Mr. ANGELL. Would the old channel be filled up?

Colonel ALLEN. The old channel, by previous authorization, was 25 feet, and that has maintained itself at the natural depth, natural controlling depth, of 25 feet.

Mr. ANGELL. What happens to the other channel for the route?

Colonel ALLEN. This would be maintained at 35 feet. There is an important oil terminal right at this point [indicating].

Mr. ANGELL. What would happen to the other channel if this is reactivated?

Colonel ALLEN. This is not to be maintained, since the adoption of this channel-and it has a controlling depth of somewhere in the vicinity of 30 feet and the larger ships can now transit this channel in high tide.

Mr. ANGELL. Dr. Neal, do you have any questions?

Mr. NEAL. I think not, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ANGELL. Thank you very much, Colonel Allen.
Colonel ALLEN. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF JAMES N. MILNE, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
TO THE SPEAKER, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. ANGELL. Are there any other witnesses on this project?
Mr. Milne, the committee will be very glad to hear you.

Mr. MILNE. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement from Speaker Martin, in whose district this project is located, in which he says:

I am advised that your committee will consider on June 3 the report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors on Fall River (Mass.) Harbor. This report was made in response to a resolution of the Public Works Committee adopted on July 6, 1949. (H. Doc. No. 628, 79th Cong., 2d sess.)

The Board of Engineers, as the result of extensive hearings and reviews, has recommended modification of the existing project for Fall River Harbor to provide for the development of the so-called midbay channel instead of the inshore channel as provided by the existing project.

It will be noted that the Board, in its report, stated that the benefits to be derived from the midbay channel justify the additional cost of this project.

I would like to point out that the local interests in the Fall River area are unanimous in advocating the proposed change. It was recommended also by the various levels of authority in the Corps of Engineers and the full Board of Engineers. The Bureau of the Budget stated it had no objection to the submission of the report and it comes to the House with the approval of the Secretary of the Army.

The development of this harbor is an integral part of a plan of the city authorities and local interests to promote the economic progress of Fall River and the surrounding area. It will make the area more attractive for industries to locate there.

Together with the local interests involved, I have been urging this modification for the past 6 years. This proposal is the happy culmination of a long and extended effort to secure just and fair treatment for the important area which this fine waterway serves. I am happy to urge at this time that the committee adopt the recommendations of the Department of the Army and all who are concerned in this matter.

That is signed Joseph W. Martin, Jr.

Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, Mr. Milne.

Are there any questions of Mr. Milne by members of the committee? If not, we thank you, Mr. Milne.

Mr. MILNE. Thank you.

Mr. ANGELL. If there are no further witnesses, we will take up the next project.

GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WASH.

Mr. ANGELL. The committee will take up at this time Grays Harbor and Chehalis River project, Washington.

Colonel Allen, will you give us the engineers' report on this project?

Colonel ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, this report is submitted in accordance with the resolution of the House Public Works Committee on the 22d of April 1947. It has no document number; it has not been printed.

Grays Harbor is a large tidal estuary in the southwestern part of the State of Washington. You can see by the vicinity map, this being the tidal area, and this being Grays Harbor, and Pacific Ocean, and this transferred to the local map, with the enlarged section, gives Grays Harbor here [indicating].

The Grays Harbor project extends from the Pacific Ocean through the jetties up to Aberdeen and up past Cosmopolis, beyond to the Chehalis River. The tributary area of Grays Harbor comprises most of Jefferson County, and contains parts of Pacific County, Thurston County and Lewis County. The principal towns in the vicinity are Aberdeen, Hoquiam, Cosmopolis, and Montesano.

The principal resource of Grays Harbor is the lumbering industry. Lumber and wood products comprise the bulk of the commerce moving in and out of Grays Harbor. In 1952, the commerce totaled nearly 2 million tons of which about 60 percent was rafted logs.

The existing project for Grays Harbor begins out at this point [indicating]. This is the jetty in this area, and consists of a channel across the bar at this point [indicating], 600 feet wide and 30 feet deep. The construction of the jetties and a river depth of 30 feet up to Aberdeen-Hoquiam area, to a point just about in here on this map [indicating].

The project then goes to varving depths from there, 26 feet up to the first bridge at this point [indicating]. Then from Cosmopolis, the project is 18 feet, as we continue up to Montesano.

The local interests desire that the 30-foot project depth at this point, where it changes from 30 to 26 feet be extended up above the river bridge, up to and including Cosmopolis, with varying conditions in the terminal dredging, and the turning basin in this vicinity, to facilitate the handling of rafted logs.

The cost of the project, as recommended by the Chief of Engineers, is $421,800. The non-Federal cost would be $69,600. The benefit-cost ratio of the project is 1.09.

The Bureau of the Budget, in commenting on this report, noted the 1.09 benefit-cost ratio, and commented on certain of the benefit claims for the project. They pointed out no consideration was given to the loss of the commerce which might be incurred by other ports as a result of this additional facility being provided at Grays Harbor. They further state that reduction of damages to shore installations is not a proper or direct benefit. They state that on the basis of the information contained in the report the proposed modification appears to have marginal justification, which the B-C ratio points out. They call attention to the fact that the maintenance of the existing channel above the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge at this point is now a respon

sibility of the local interests and has been for a number of years, in accordance with the authorization in 1950.

The recommended modification shifts the local responsibility to the Federal Government. They go on to say that in view of the present policy looking toward increased local participation in water resources, in this project, and in view of—

what we believe to be the marginal justification for the proposed improvement, the Bureau of the Budget is of the opinion that the Federal project participation, in the proposed modification, would be warranted only if local interests continue to maintain the channel above the railroad bridge.

They conclude by stating:

I am authorized by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget to advise you that, while there would be no objection to the submission of the report to the Congress, maintenance of the channel above the railroad bridge at Federal expense would not be in accordance with the program of the President.

The State of Washington has commented on the report and offers no objection. Nor does the Department of Interior.

Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Neal.

Mr. NEAL. Colonel, what is the proportionate part of the cost of this whole project of dredging the channel above the bridge?

Colonel ALLEN. I do not have it broken down into the channel above the bridge, with respect to the first cost, Dr. Neal. I have the estimate for the entire Federal dredging cost which is $421,800.

The Budget objection was not with respect to actual dredging but has to do with the maintenance above the bridge. The present project provides that the local interests will maintain the project above this point. The recommendation of the Chief of Engineers is that the project be deemed and in accordance with the practice in the past, the responsibility for maintenance of the project is devolved upon the Federal Government.

Mr. NEAL. I understand the Bureau of the Budget gives its approval with the reservation to reject that portion of the report "above the bridge"; is that correct?

Colonel ALLEN. With respect to the assumption of maintenance only.

Mr. NEAL. On maintenance only.

Colonel ALLEN. Yes.

Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Mack.

Mr. MACK. The Budget Bureau recommended that the local interest supply the $12,500 for maintenance of the channel above that point, I believe?

Colonel ALLEN. They did not comment specifically on the actual contribution, but that is the figure that we estimate the maintenance would be annually.

STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL V. MACK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON-Resumed

Mr. MACK. The State of Washington has four large bodies of navi gable water, on which are located many ports. The southern boundary of the State is the. Columbia River; the northern boundary is Puget Sound; and there are a number of ports on both of those bodies of water. In the center of the State's ocean coastline is Grays Harbor.

The port of Grays Harbor has authority under the Washington State law to levy a 2-mill tax for dredging and I believe it has each year since about 1917. Now, it is true that the port of Grays Harbor has dredged from the bridge up to Cosmopolis and has maintained that channel at 26 feet. The reason they did so, without Federal contribution, was the ships were going up there and had to have enough water to get out.

Two weeks ago a large vessel carrying lumber for shipment to Korea was tied up right in that area. It could not get through because the channel was not deep enough.

The port authority has expended every cent that it gets from taxes and from revenue for the maintenance of that channel. It cannot go any further.

These three towns, Aberdeen, Hoquiam, and Cosmopolis have about 35,000 population.

Now, at the point shown on the river, at North Aberdeen are located the main oil tanks serving the community. The port of Grays Harbor handles some 23 percent of the lumber that is shipped by cargo out of the State of Washington. It is a very important port. The ships using this port are the Liberty and Victory ships. These big ships carry 2 or 3 million feet of lumber each. Most of that lumber goes overseas.

Telegrams and letters I have received and the conversations I have had with the port authorities indicate our port cannot afford to take on any more financial responsibility. Our port has done everything it possibly could do. It is the only port in the State of Washington that maintains a dredge.

Mr. ANGELL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MACK. Yes.

Mr. ANGELL. Is it not the policy of the Federal Government to maintain all harbors at the expense of the Federal Government?

Mr. MACK. I have always so understood. But in this case of Grays Harbor, our port has had to do dredging because there was no other way to make it possible for ships to move up and down the river.

Mr. ANGELL. Any questions of Mr. Mack or Colonel Allen?

Colonel ALLEN. I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, one item which is a little unusual, and that is that the local interests agree to loan their dredge to the United States on the basis of the United States providing the operating and maintenance costs while the United States is using this dredge, which Mr. Mack mentioned.

Mr. ANGELL. May I ask the Corps of Engineers if it is not the recommendation of the Corps of Engineers that the Federal Government should maintain this, in line with other channels?

Colonel ALLEN. That is contained in the report, that recommendation; yes.

Mr. ANGELL. Anything further on this project?

If not, we will proceed with the next project.

The next project on the list, Willapa River and Naselle River, Wash.

Colonel ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, if we can take the other one, Grays Harbor, Wash., we might save a little time of the committee.

GRAYS HARBOR, WASH.-EXTENSION OF EXISTING WESTHAVEN BREAKWATER

Mr. ANGELL. Without objection, we will take up next then Grays Harbor, Wash.-extension to the existing Westhaven Breakwater.

The Chairman will state that this project, which we have under consideration now, is contained in H. R. 9391, introduced by Mr. Mack. Without objection, that bill will be included in the record. (H. R. 9391 follows:)

[H. R. 9391, 83d Cong., 2d sess.]

A BILL To authorize modification of certain works of improvement on Grays Harbor, Washington, to provide an extension to the existing Westhaven Breakwater

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the authorized project for Grays Harbor and Chehalis River, Washington, published in House Document Numbered 635, Eightieth Congress, second session, be modified to include an additional breakwater at Westhaven Cove as approved and recommended by the United States Army Engineers.

Mr. ANGELL. Colonel Allen, will you give us a statement on this project?

Colonel ALLEN. This project, Mr. Chairman, is at the entrance of Grays Harbor. These are the jetties that I mentioned previously as a part of the project.

Grays Harbor continues on past this point, spreads out and goes on into Aberdeen.

Westhaven Cove at the outer end of Grays Harbor is primarily engaged in the business of fishing. In 1950, it was estimated that there were 10,000 fish landings; that is, landings at this point of commercial fisherman at the Westhaven area. Commerce at the Westhaven Cove, as I say, primarily is fish and crabs.

The existing project at Westhaven Cove consists of two jetties shown on this sketch here and here (indicating).

Local interests have dredged the interior basin at Westhaven Cove. The Federal Government has provided for protection by means of revetment and groins along the outer and the southern entrance.

The commerce of Westhaven Cove has developed to the point where the facilities provided there now are inadequate for the number of ships that are used there, and the number that are expected to use this particular area.

There is a photograph in the rear of the

Mr. ANGELL. I just handed that to the members of the committee. Colonel ALLEN. I think that photograph explains pretty adequately the congested nature of Westhaven Cove.

The primary requirements at the area is one of more anchorage space for the fishing craft, in order to avoid having to tie up 4 or 5 abreast, to avoid damage to ships by being tied together during periods of rough water, and to speed the entrance and exit of craft from the harbor.

The Chief of Engineers recommends that the project for Grays Harbor-Chehalis River, which includes Westhaven Cove, be modified to provide for the construction of a third breakwater, 1,400 feet long. That will enable local interests to move in and dredge and construct additional facilities for the mooring and handling of fishing craft.