SMITH BROS., WILLIAM K. VAN PELT, Port Washington, Wis., June 25, 1954. Congressman, 6th District, Wisconsin, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN VAN PELT: The writer is writing this letter in behalf of the fishing industry of Port Washington in regard to the proposed improvement to Port Washington's harbor. No one knows better than the fishermen the terrible condition our harbor is in, during the easterly and southeasterly storms which sweep this area during the fall, winter, and spring seasons. For years fishermen have spent many sleepless nights watching their boats and wondering if they will ride out the storm, and standing by helplessly when one does break loose. The fishing industry fleet of Port Washington has dwindled down in size, and this is due mainly to the fact that fishermen do not care to take the risk of anchoring their boats in our harbor due to the above condition. Personally, our company has moved one of our boats to the neighboring port of Sheboygan, Wis., and we know of another fishing outfit who has done the same just because our harbor gives us so small an amount of protection. We, therefore, urge you to make every effort possible to get the committee and Congress to appropriate the amount of money needed to give our harbor the relief so badly needed. Thanking you in advance, we are Yours very sincerely, SMITH BROS., CITY OF PORT WASHINGTON, WIS., June 25, 1954. Hon. WILLIAM VAN PELT, Congressman, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN: We are rather disappointed. We expected to be called to appear in person before the honorable Public Works Committee, House of Representatives, to present our case, the Army engineers' plan Z for the Port Washington Harbor, which we are in accord with 100 percent and which has done remarkably in getting the needed approval all along the line so far. We hope and pray that the Public Works Committee will give it the same consideration. It has the backing, you know, of the United States Army engineers and the Great Lakes Steamboat-largest to the smallest carriers', captains', and their president's, Adm. Captain Spencer of Toledo, fullest support. They have all recommended it, knowing the importance of it to protect the life of their employees, and save their ships in case of a storm. You have been told of the drownings in our harbor and the waves rising 12 feet above its natural level, which is a fact. The city has furnished and paid for 5 special policemen to protect the powerplant from bombing during World War 2. This powerplant, Wisconsin Electric Power Co., supplies the power and light throughout the State of Wisconsin to borderlines east, west, south, and north. It is very important to Milwaukee large industries, when the five units are running. They never shut down. They produce 400,000 kilowatts. Our tonnage runs over 1,250,000 tons. Give us a safe harbor and we will raise that tonnage by leaps and bounds. Please give us what you think is right. Sincerely yours, CITY OF PORT WASHINGTON, BRIEF OF THE CITY OF PORT WASHINGTON, WIS. I. PLAN Z, ITS EFFECT ON EXISTING PROJECT, ETC. The report of the Corps of Engineers on Port Washington, Wis. Harbor, under recommended plan Z, as approved recommends modification of the existing harbor project to provide for extending and raising the northbreakwater and removing a part of the south breakwater, at an estimated Federal cost of $2,515.000, subject to certain items of local cooperation, including a cash contribution of 6 percent of the cost of construction II. HISTORY OF PORT WASHINGTON HARBOR AND NEED FOR IMPROVEMENTS The city of Port Washington, Wis., is located on the shores of Lake Michigan, about 30 miles north of Milwaukee and 115 miles north of Chicago. It has a population of 5,500, with some 2,250 persons employed and working in its industries and stores. Among its leading industries are the following: Harnischfaeger Corp., manufacturer of prefabricated homes; Wisconsin Chair Co., upholstered furniture; Meta Mold Co., patented plastics used for outdoor advertising: Wisconsin Electric, light and power; KWick Mix Co., cranes, concrete mixers, and shovels; J. E. Gibson Co., iron and steel castings; Bolens Products, iron and steel home and farm machinery; Usow Manufacturing Co., Womens' and mens' garments; Simplicity Manufacturing Co., tractors for farm and garden Smith Bros. Fisheries, restaurant and manufactured caviar, etc. Port Washington has at present a fine harbor which handles each year about 1,250,000 tons, principally coal for the Wisconsin Electric Co. At one time lumber was shipped into the city and will be again when the contemplated improvements to the harbor are made. During the past years, since 1935 when the Wisconsin Electric Co., located its large powerplant at Port Washington, that utility has experienced much trouble in the unloading of coal at its waterfront dock due to heavy storms with the resultant difficult and dangerous conditions in the inner harbor. Each year there have been many times when the coalboats have been forced to leave the inner harbor during storms and high waters to prevent serious damage and injury to the boats. During these heavy storms the coalboats must leave the inner harbor and anchor out in the open lake to ride out the storm or else go to Milwaukee to unload the coal there for transshipment by rail to Port Washington. This procedure is very costly and reflects directly on the rates charged the consumers for electricity and power furnished by the Wisconsin Electric Co. The rates of this utility are fixed by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission. In the past, boats traveling north from Chicago or Milwaukee, or which are southbound, have sought refuge in Port Washington Harbor only to discover that under existing conditions it was safer in the open lake. Recreation boats and fishing fleets have also experienced difficulty at Port Washington harbor in times of storms and for this reason have located in other harbors. If existing conditions are corrected many of these boats will make Port Washington their home port. Due to the bad conditions which prevail in the harbor during storms, Port Washington requested Federal aid in making needed improvements. In 1950 a series of tests on a model of Port Washington Harbor were made at the Waterways Experimental Station at Vicksburg, Miss. After exhaustive tests. the Army engineers in 1951 published the results of these tests, which were referred to the United States district engineer at Milwaukee for further study and recommendation. It was decided that so-called plan Z was the best one to adopt to remedy the situation at Port Washington Harbor. Colonel Kumpe, district engineer at Milwaukee, recommended plan Z with the stipulation that local interests pay 6 percent of the costs of construction, or about $160,000. Port Washington agreed and has the money ready and available for this purpose. This recommendation was then sent to the division office of the Great Lakes Division, Corps of Engineers, and Colonel Trower, division engineer, concurred in approving plan Z The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors; the Chief of Engineers; Governor Kohler, of Wisconsin; the Great Lakes Harbors Association; Admiral Spencer, president of the Lake Carriers Association; and the captains' committee of that association, likewise, all approved and recommended plan Z for the improvement of Port Washington Harbor. Plan Z was then sent to the Bureau of the Budget, along with the recommendations of the Corps of Engineers. The Bureau of the Budget, in com menting on the report of the Corps of Engineers, expressed the view that since a large share of the benefits accrue to a single organization, greater local participation in payment of costs should be required. The Secretary of War then transmitted the report, together with the comments from the Bureau of the Budget, to Congress. DISCUSSION OF COMMENTS ON REPORT BY THE BUREAU OF THE BUDGET Port Washington respectfully suggests that the payment of 6 percent toward the costs by local interests is fair and equitable. While it is true that a large share of the benefits accrue to a single organization, the Wisconsin Electric Co., nevertheless, these benefits actually are enjoyed by most of the people of the State of Wisconsin. The electric company distributes the electricity and power generated at the Port Washington plant to almost the entire State of Wisconsin. Since the electric company is a utility regulated by the State of Wisconsin, its rates are fixed by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission. Thus, if the utility is compelled to pay a larger share of the costs, as suggested by the Bureau of the Budget, the people of the State of Wisconsin generally would be required to pay the increase in higher rates. This utility serves both homes and many important industries throughout the State. During World War II this utility was considered so important to the war effort that Port Washington, at its own expense, employed five policemen to guard against sabotage of the utility. There is ample precedent for requiring local interests to pay only 6 percent of the cost, even though a single industry benefits most from the improvements. In the so-called Trenton Channel project this committee and Congress approved a 6-percent contribution by local interests even though the benefits accrued largely to a single organization. The facts in the Trenton Channel improvement project matter are very similar to the situation at Port Washington Harbor. In the Trenton Channel case a section of the Detroit River was involved. Insofar as the comments of the Bureau of the Budget with reference to fishing and recreation craft are concerned, it should be pointed out that groups at Milwaukee and elsewhere have indicated their desire to locate at and use the facilities of Port Washington Harbor if and when the improvements are made at the harbor. The use of Port Washington Harbor by fishing boats and recreation craft will boom if this Congress will only approve plan Z as recommended and approved by the Corps of Engineers. The attention of this committee is also invited to the fact that the city of Port Washington has for 40 years fought for and promoted the St. Lawrence seaway project. If Port Washington is to benefit from the seaway its harbor must be improved within the next 5 or 6 years. The city is planning to promote and develop overseas and Canadian trade. CONCLUSION The city of Port Washington respectfully requests this honorable committee to recommend approval by Congress of plan Z2 as recommended by the Corps of Engineers for the improvement of Port Washington, Wis., harbor. Port Washington believes that approval of plan Z is essential and necessary for the future growth and development of its fine city. Port Washington because of its low tax rates, fine schools, good government, diversified industries, stable employment situation, fine parks and modern, new outdoor swimming pool, will grow and expand tremendously in the coming years. One of Port Washington's assets is its fine harbor which needs only the improvements recommended by the Corps of Engineers to make it attractive to foreign and domestic shippers. The benefits that will accrue to Port Washington and to the people of the State of Wisconsin will more than compensate for the cost of such improvements. The St. Lawrence seaway is another reason for making the harbor improvements now in order that Port Washington may obtain its share of the increased domestic and world trade and water route shipments that will come to the Middle West. This committee's recommendation for congressional approval of plan Z, as recommended by the Corps of Engineers, will be greatly appreciated by the city of Port Washington and its fine people. Respectfully submitted. JUNE 28, 1954. PORT WASHINGTON, WIS. By JOHN H. KAISER, Mayor. Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Are there any questions by the members of the committee of Mr. Van Pelt? (No response.) Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. We thank you very much, Mr. Van Pelt. Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. We will now proceed to H. R. 8877, a bill granting the consent of Congress to the city of Mobile, Ala., and the State of Alabama to close Garrows Bend Channel. We will hear from Colonel Allen of the Corps of Engineers at this time. GARROWS BEND CHANNEL, MOBILE COUNTY, ALA. Colonel ALLEN. Garrows Bend Channel, which local interests request a permit to give them the authority to close, is this small channel up to the ship channel in Mobile, which is now a pier for Brookley Field, the Air Force base there. This project in years past was the only means of exit or entrance. from the main channel into this area. There are some piers along the northern end. During the war the military dredged a channel known as the Arlington Channel from the main Mobile ship channel into a terminal used primarily by the Brookley Air Force Base. So at the present time there is a circuit of channels in here and in here. [Indicating.] This project is in the Federal project at the present time for the area. Local interests are desirious of developing this Sand Island and have requested authority to put a causeway across the channel, which will in effect interrupt navigation across there. The Chief of Engineers has no objection to that. The district engineer put out public notices to all of the agencies concerned with using the channel. There were no objections to the proposal. It is felt that such a closing is not damaging to navigation in view of the fact that a sufficient wide and sufficiently deep channel is available from the Mobile ship channel here in to the interests which are now being served by the Garrows Bend Channel. Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Did the district engineer hold hearing on this? Colonel ALLEN. I will look at the public notice which I have here. No, sir. He did not hold a public hearing, but sent notices to all interested parties on January 7 this year. However, there was no public hearing held. Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Is it not unusual to hold a public hearing on a matter of this kind? Colonel ALLEN. A public hearing would have been held had a large number of protests been received, and some response received to the effect that it was damaging. But out of all the agencies to which the notice was sent, none of them objected, so a hearing was not held. Mr. SCUDDER. Is anybody being benefited from the closing? Colonel ALLEN. No navigation interests. Mr. SCUDDER. I mean, are some property owners or individuals being benefitted? Colonel ALLEN. Presumably there would be some benefits to the city in this development out here, but the agency making the request was the city of Mobile and the State of Alabama. They made the request for the permit. Mr. SCUDDER. The city would gain the property, more than likely, that would be abandoned by the canal. Colonel ALLEN. That is correct. Also they propose in developing this area here to take the material with which they will build up this area, from this channel. So they are going to widen and deepen this entrance channel over and above its project depths in order to obtain material for Sand Island. Mr. SCUDDER. It will be public property, though, and not private? Colonel ALLEN. They are going to build a sewage-treatment plant on the island-the city is. Mr. SCUDDER. I thought there would be some benefit accruing to someone. Mr. NEAL. Will the city of Mobile absorb this cost? Colonel ALLEN. Yes, sir. There will be no cost to the Federal Government. Mr. NEAL. It is a little unusual to have local interests ask for abandonment of a channel, rather than to create more. Colonel ALLEN. Yes, sir, it is. And had there been no Arlington Channel in here, of course, it would have been impossible to approve. But since there is exit and entrance from this area here, this one serves no purpose and in effect it will benefit the United States by reason of not having to maintain it. Mr. NEAL. The United States Government dredged that smaller channel you speak of and still uses it? Colonel ALLEN. Yes, sir. This was dredged as a civil works project and this was dredged as a military project. Mr. NEAL. And borrowing material from that project now would be an advantage to the Federal Government rather than a disadvantage? Colonel ALLEN. Yes, sir. Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. I have a letter addressed to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Dondero, dated June 16, 1954, from the Secretary of the Army, Hon. Robert T. Stevens, in which he states that the Department of the Army offers no objection to the favorable consideration of the above-mentioned bill, and that the bill does not involve the expenditure of funds by the United States. Without objection this entire letter will be placed in the record. (The letter from the Secretary of the Army is as follows:) Hon. GEORGE A. DONDERO, Chairman, Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. JUNE 16, 1954. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your recent request for the views of the Department of the Army with respect to H. R. 8877, 83d Congress, a bill granting the consent of Congress to the city of Mobile, Ala., and the State of Alabama, their successors and assigns, the right to close Garrows Bend Channel, Mobile County, Ala., by the construction of an earth-filled causeway across said channel in the county of Mobile, State of Alabama. The Department of the Army offers no objection to favorable consideration of the above-mentioned bill. Garrows Bend Channel lies between the mainland and McDuffie Island and is part of the authorized Federal project for Mobile Harbor. It connects to the north directly with the main Bay Channel and to the south by way of Arlington Channel. The State of Alabama plans a solid-fill causeway across Garrows Bend Channel to carry a road, railroad span, and sewer lines to a proposed sewage treatment plant on McDuffie Island. It is also proposed to develop an industrial area on the island. Fill material would be dredged from existing project channels resulting in appreciable savings to the Government. Industries located on Garrows Bend Channel have access by way of Arlington Channel, therefore would |