big modern harbor downstream, and I think the chairman is familiar with that Freeport area, with the Dow Chemical complex and the waterplant, but the requirement of the 1917 act is more than complied to have a little executive session with the members that are here. with by the big, new, modern harbor that the city has built down

stream.

Senator KERR. Thank you, Senator.

Now, if the members of the committee are agreeable, I would like (Whereupon, at 12:30 o'clock, the committee went into executive session.)

BEACH EROSION CONTROL OF THE SHORE
IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIF.

THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 1961

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:45 a.m., in room 4200 New Senate Office Building, Senator Dennis Chavez (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Chavez (presiding), Kerr, Randolph, Gruening, Long (Hawaii), Metcalf, Case (South Dakota), Cooper, Fong, and Boggs.

Also present: Irving E. Moore, chief clerk.

The CHAIRMAN. We have Senate bill 307 before us.

(S. 307 and description of project follow.)

[S. 307, 87th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To authorize certain beach erosion control of the shore in San Diego County, California

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the project for beach erosion control of Oceanside, San Diego County, California, is hereby authorized, in lieu of the existing Federal beach erosion control project, substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in his report dated August 25, 1960, at an estimated cost of $1,498,000.

SEC. 2. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIF., (OCEANSIDE) BEACH EROSION CONTROL

[H. Doc. No. 456, 86th Cong., 2d sess.]

Location: The problem area of the city of Oceanside, about 3.3 miles of Pacific Ocean frontage, lies immediately south of the Federal harbor at Camp Pendleton (U.S. Marine Corps Base) and about 35 miles north of the entrance to San Diego Harbor.

Report authorized by: Section 2 of River and Harbor Act approved July 3, 1930 (cooperative study provisions); Public Law 525, section 7, 79th Congress, July 24, 1946; and Public Law 85-500, section 112, 85th Congress, July 3, 1958.

Existing projects: Federal harbor (USMC) at Camp Pendleton, constructed in 1943 and modified in 1958, provides an inner basin 20 feet deep and entrance jetties. Beach erosion control project authorized July 3, 1958 (HD 399/84/2) for Oceanside provides for a protective beach generally 200 feet wide over 10,000 feet of shore, and an 80-foot groin north of the beach fill area.

Beach erosion control problem: Entrance jetties at Camp Pendleton Harbor have created a barrier to natural movement of littoral drift, thereby causing a serious erosion problem along the formerly stable shore at Oceanside, Calif., which is endangering both public and private development. The presently authorized project provides for Federal participation of one-third of the first costs, but authorization for the present study directed that the problem be studied to determine the extent of Federal aid in equity without regard to limitations of

exising Federal law applicable to beach erosion control. Changed conditions since authorization of existing project necessitates beach widening over an added reach of shore.

Recommended plan of improvement: In lieu of existing Federal beach erosion control project, provide at Federal expense a protective beach generally 200 feet wide over approximately 13,000 feet of shore and 100 feet wide over 4,500 feet of shore by deposition of about 2,200,000 cubic yards of suitable material including 500,000 cubic yards as advance nourishment, and a groin about 800 feet long near the north limit of the fill. Further recommended that any material dredged in connection with maintenance of Camp Pendleton Harbor or any subsequently developed civilian harbor in this area be used for nourishment of the Oceanside Beach.

Local cooperation: Reimbursement for work on the project by local interests or construction by the United States is subject to conditions that local interests: (a) Obtain approval by the Chief of Engineers of plans and specifications and arrangements for prosecuting the work if performed by local interests; (b) provide at local expense all necessary lands, easements and rights-of-way; and (c) assure: (1) control of water pollution to extent necessary to safeguard health of bathers; (2) maintenance of protective and improvement measures during their useful life; (2) maintenance of protective and improvement measures during their useful life; (3) continued public ownership of non-Federal public shores and their administration for public use. Subject further to proviso that local interests agree that cost allocated to this beach protection project shall be adjusted to reflect savings from multiple-purpose construction of addition of Oceanside Harbor improvement to overall project, if authorized, and the cost so transferred from BEC project to harbor project be shared by local interests and Federal Government as appropriate for small-boat harbor projects. Comments of Federal and State agencies:

Department of Interior: No objection.

Department of Navy: No objection, but cannot assume any commitments for future maintenance dredging in excess of its own needs for naval harbor purposes at Camp Pendleton.

Department of Commerce: No effect on programs of that Department.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: Concurs.

State of California: Concurs.

Comments of Bureau of Budget: No objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The Senator from California, Mr. Kuchel. Senator, we are ready to hear you.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS H. KUCHEL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Senator KUCHEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am grateful to you for the opportunity you give me to appear before you today in behalf of S. 307, an emergency measure.

With me, available for testimony, are Mr. Erwin Sklar, the deputy mayor of the city of Oceanside; and Mr. Richard Eaton of the Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army.

I have introduced S. 307, Mr. Chairman, along with my colleague from California, Senator Engle, to provide for a project of beach erosion control at Oceanside, in San Diego County, Calif., authorizing the Corps of Engineers, in lieu of the existing Federal beach erosion control project, substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in his report dated August 25, 1960, at an estimated cost of $1,498,000.

Mr. Chairman, the bill has been approved by the Corps of Engineers. It has also been approved by the Bureau of the Budget of the Kennedy administration.

During the war, the Defense Establishment found it necessary to acquire a large area of land in San Diego County adjacent to the city of Oceanside, which was called Camp Pendleton. And there, during World War II, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of American military personnel in the Marine Corps were shipped overseas to participate in the conflict. It was necessary for the Federal Government to construct at Camp Pendleton a harbor, which it did, to transship the military personnel overseas.

As a result of that construction, Mr. Chairman, over the years, what once was as beautiful an area of beach in all the State from which I come, has been practically destroyed. The Corps of Engineers has recognized the responsibility of the Federal Government in that destruction. The mayor has pictures to demonstrate what the beach looked like prior to the construction by the Federal Government of the harbor, and what it looks like today. The beach is almost totally destroyed.

Indeed, were this bill not to be favorably considered, the erosion would continue eating away into the town itself. And thus an emergency is presented. I simply speak for the city of Oceanside, and ask for the approval of this committee on the basis of an emergency, of legislation which, as I say, has been recommended by the appropriate agencies downtown.

There are two amendments which are normal, and which are offered, one by me, and one by the Corps of Engineers. The one I offer provides for reimbursement to any agency which provides the moneys in advance of the appropriation process, which is precisely the language which occurs each 2 years in the Rivers and Harbors Bill itself.

That, I think, is a short statement, Mr. Chairman, of the situation with respect to this community in southern California.

Senator KERR. Mr. Chairman, would the clerk take these two sug gested amendments down to the Senator from California, and see if they are in accordance with his feelings.

Senator KUCHEL. Mr. Chairman, may the mayor show you some of the photographs that have come from the city, both before and after this?

The CHAIRMAN. In the meantime, I want to insert in the record a letter from Senator Engle approving of the bill. (The letter follows:)

Hon. DENNIS CHAVEZ,

U.S. SENATE,

SELECT COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES,
February 27, 1961.

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am pleased to learn that your committee is going to take up our urgent Oceanside Beach erosion control legislation Thursday morning.

Your personal acquaintance with this problem is understood and appreciated. As a coauthor of the bill, S. 307, naturally I am hopeful for its early approval. I will not take up the committee's time Thursday unless you wish me to appear. With kindest regards,

Sincerely yours,

CLAIR ENGLE, U.S. Senator.

Senator KUCHEL. Yes, sir, these are the amendments.

Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, the second amendment-I say second in point of order in the bill-to propose a section 3-I should like to read that, because I want to note one thing about it.

It would read:

The Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized to reimburse local interests for such work done by them on the beach erosion project authorized in section 1, subsequent to the initiation of the atuhorized study which forms the basis for the project, provided that the work which may have been done on this project is approved by the Chief of Engineers as being in accordance with the project hereby adopted, and provided further, that such reimbursement shall be subject to appropriations applicable thereto or funds available therefor, and shall not take precedence over other pending projects of higher priority for improvement.

Mr. Chairman, the reason I read it with emphasis, as I have, is because I wanted to point out that the reimbursement must be for work approved by the Chief of Engineers, and it must be for work that has been undertaken subsequent to the initiation of the authorized study, which forms the basis for the project.

It is, as the Senator from California has pointed out, in harmony with general legislation. But I want the record to show that we are not proposing to authorize reimbursement on a project for work which is undertaken regardless of Federal interest in it.

Senator KUCHEL. Yes, sir, the Senator is correct.

Senator CASE. And the other amendment is merely to change the reference identification from a letter by the Chief of Engineers, or a report by the Chief of Engineers, to the House document which is customary in accord with other practices.

Senator KUCHEL. Thank your, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Any objections to reporting the bill?

Senator KERR. Mr. Chairman, I see the colonel from the Corps of Engineers here. My information is that this project has been approved by the Bureau of the Budget and by the Corps of Engineers.