ment along the south side of channel D, and on the easterly shore of Point San Bruno. The plans appear to be tentative, but the claim is made that congestion at the port of San Francisco is such that additional terminals will soon be required; that these can not be provided along the water front of San Francisco proper; that if they are not, the city of San Francisco may lose commerce to Oakland or other points, in the bay; that, further, there is a feeling locally that the city or the commercial interests of the city, should have terminals of their own, distinct from the present terminals which are under the control of a State commission, and that the creation of terminals at South San Francisco would meet these needs. The board is inclined to consider these arguments either insufficiently proved or not germane to the discussion. No adequate evidence was submitted that San Francisco's terminals were seriously congested, or that it would be impracticable to extend them to meet the need of the immediate future. From a national viewpoint the ports on San Francisco Bay must be 'considered as a unit, and, for the shipper in the interior it is of little moment over what particular terminal he obtains service, provided it be adequate and satisfactory. Moreover, assuming that the city of San Francisco desired to establish its own terminals, it is not clear how under existing law this could be done at South San Francisco, which is a separate municipality. It would, of course, be possible for private interests of the former city to finance a terminal development at the latter, but there would be no essential connection between such a development and the municipality of San Francisco; it would simply be an additional terminal on San Francisco Bay.

10. It is likely that future developments at this point will be primarily industrial rather than terminal. If these occur on a large enough scale they might attract coastwise or even foreign vessels which would require deeper channels. At present, however, such a growth is uncertain. It is likely that the provision of deep water would favor it, but the principal beneficiaries would be the interests which are now holding for disposal many hundreds of acres of undeveloped land. It seems probable that the increase in value of this land, resulting from a deep channel, would be considerably in excess of the entire cost of the proposed project. It is not the policy of the Government to spend large sums where the principal immediate result is an increment in land values, and where the future development can not be adequately predicted.

11. A channel across the shoal in South San Francisco Bay, following sections A and B, would provide a 30-foot depth into the southern part of the bay. It has been claimed that this would stimulate industrial and terminal development along the adjacent water fronts. None has, however, thus far been undertaken on a large scale, although there at present exists a channel over the shoal more than 1,500 feet wide and 26 feet deep, which with a range of tide of 6 feet is ample for a great majority of ocean-going vessels, The only development contemplated, of which anything definite could be learned, was a cement company in the vicinity of Redwood. and there is no evidence that it would need a greater depth in the main channel of the bay than now exists, as its shipments are expected to be in-part cargoes.

12. In view of these facts and in the absence of sufficient evidence that the proposed work is now required, the board concurs with the

district engineer that expensive channel development by the Federal Government is not justified. It therefore recommends that no improvement of South San Francisco Harbor, Calif., and entrance thereto, be undertaken by the United States at the present time.

13. In compliance with law, the board reports that there are no questions of terminal facilities, waterpower, or other subjects which could be coordinated with the project proposed in such manner as to render the improvement advisable in the interests of commerce and navigation.

For the board:

O

H. C. NEWCOMER,

Senior Member Present.

A REPORT FROM THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS ON PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION AND SURVEY OF GREAT KILLS, STATEN ISLAND, N. Y.

FEBRUARY 11, 1926.-Referred to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors and ordered to be printed, with illustration

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, February 10, 1926.

The SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

MY DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I am transmitting herewith a report, dated the 6th instant, from the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, on preliminary examination and survey of Great Kills, Staten Island, N. Y., authorized by the river and harbor act of September 22, 1922, together with accompanying papers and map.

Sincerely yours,

Subject: Preliminary examination and survey of Great Kills, Staten Island, N. Y.

To: The Secretary of War.

1. I submit, for transmission to Congress, my report on preliminary examination and survey of Great Kills, Staten Island, N. Y., authorized by the river and harbor act of September 22, 1922, together with accompanying papers and map.

2. Great Kills is a small natural harbor on the southeast shore of Staten Island. It has not been improved by the United States. It was formerly protected from wind and waves by a sand spit, but this was breached some years ago, as a result of which the harbor has shoaled extensively and the natural protection is greatly reduced. Mean range of tide is 4.7 feet. Request is made for an entrance channel 12 feet deep from Lower Bay and an anchorage basin of the same depth, the dredged material to be used for land reclamation. 3. From the most recent information available to the district engineer, who is also the division engineer, it appears that there is a population of about 30,000 within a radius of 5 miles from the Kills, and a traffic pertaining to this area of about 217,000 tons a year. Considerable development has occurred since these estimates were made. The request for an improved harbor is based, partly on the need of a harbor of refuge for small boats, and partly in the interests of economical transportation of freight. The district engineer believes that a considerable portion of the freight consumed locally, especially that which originates in Greater New York, might use an improved harbor at Great Kills, and that a saving of 25 cents a ton thereon might reasonably be expected. He can find little definite information bearing on the need for a harbor of refuge. He submits estimates for entrance and interior channels from 10 to 12 feet deep and of varying widths, with, in each case, an anchorage basin within the harbor 12 feet deep having an area of 63 acres. The costs vary from $450,000 to $685,000, with annual maintenance of $10,000 in each case.

4. The city of New York has offered to provide terminal facilities to cost approximately $40,000. The district engineer considers that, for this sum, terminals could be built adequate for the reasonably prospective traffic. Local interests have offered to bulkhead the southerly side of the harbor to provide spoil disposal areas and a land company offered, at the time the survey was made, to pay $500 an acre for land filled by dredged material to a height of 10 feet above low water. The district engineer believes that more extensive bulkheads should be provided, and that, in view of the large local benefits and the high value of the reclaimed land (estimated at $14,000 an acre) more liberal cash cooperation should be afforded. He recommends the least expensive of the improvements on which he has made an estimate, at a cost of $450,000, provided that local interests, in addition to furnishing suitable terminals and bulkheads, contribute in cash $350,000. In a supplementary report he states that in recent months, subsequent to the submission of the report of survey, the city of New York has decided to create a marine park between the harbor and lower bay, with an area when completed of nearly 400 acres. The material to fill this area to 8 feet above mean low water, if obtained from the harbor, would involve dredging the latter to an average depth of 13 feet.

5. These reports have been referred, as required by law, to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and attention is invited to its report herewith. The board concurs in general with the district engineer as to the advisability of some Federal improvement at this point, and as to the relative local and general benefits to result. It believes, however, that the United States should confine its work to