ect, which very few of them would because of their marginal benefit

cost ratios.

We have looked over the new legislation proposed and we find that the Better Communities Act and the Rural Development Act potentially could be of great assistance to us. But at this point it is too early to tell just how much help we can expect from either.

We have submitted for review by the Governor's Budget Committee, a plan for a $10 million bond issue on the 1974 ballot for the purpose of developing ports. But $10 million by itself won't scratch the surface without substantial Federal funding to match it. That, of course, is our primary interest in this hearing this morning.

It would be our intent, subject to your concurrence, to do substantially more research to augment this that we present to you today to give you a little better feel for the actual requirements by community. It is my understanding that Don Statter, the director of Water and Harbors, has arranged to accompany you on this trip to provide you technical assistance in each one of these communities. He is familiar with each one of these communities, and with each and every problem for light-, shallow-, medium-, and deep-draft vessels, as well as other port-related facilities.

One other item which we would like to ask your consideration of is when you draw up your requirements for the funding that some special consideration be given to those Alaskan communities that have no local funding and almost no local tax base. Special consideration should be given to them as a development project for the community in addition to serving a waterfront purpose.

Second, the current policy of the Corps of Engineers establishes that dredging is permissible by the corps on small boat harbors up to the point where the berthing facilities are to be located, and at that point the dredging the State's responsibility. I have never really understood the rationale of cutting it off right at the point where we build the inner workings of the harbor.

It would seem logical to me the State should continue its current policy of building all of the inner workings and the corps continue its old policy of doing all the dredging work. That way it is clean, simple and a lot less complicated.

That concludes a summary of our testimony, but I would like to compliment the fine work that you have accomplished on the Highway Act as it relates to Alaska which now permits Federal funds to be expended on the Marine Highway System. This is a great achievement and a great advancement for the State.

That concludes my testimony except to also compliment you highly on your fine work on this pipeline.

Senator GRAVEL. With respect to the highway system, is there any thought to expanding it to include the hydrofoils or hovercraft? I understand Boeing is making some prototypes. Has the State been in contact with them?

Mr. EASLEY. Yes, indeed. I have been in contact with Boeing and the Washington State ferries whose people are apparently going to test a vessel for them. We are looking at it very closely and will observe the testing with a great deal of interest. I have had some reservations about the system as it relates to Alaska for a number of reasons.

One of them, of course, is the vulnerability of the struts on floating debris in the water. They have assured me that that isn't a problem.

Some applications of hydrofoils could be of great benefit to the State. This would be the case in Prince William Sound, obviously. That is one area that is not really well covered by transportation at the present time. The Mr. Bartlett runs full in the summer and we have standbys that are endless that never make the trip.

Lieutenant Colonel DRISCOLL. I would ask you to possibly comment on this statement you made about the dredging problem. Of course, you do realize that the corps' policy is uniform throughout the country. The general feeling is that the Federal responsibility aims itself at the general navigation features; that is, the harbor entrances, the main channels, things that are in common use by anyone who uses the harbor. Then once you get into specific berthing areas or dockside facilities, this falls into the realm, the feeling is, of privilege at commercial enterprise type of things.

There could be exceptions and naturally it would take legislation for us to deviate from this. The legislation could be done in one of two ways: It could be general legislation for this region or it could be specific legislation, project by project, based on any special considerations that a certain project might have.

So actually, we can't do anything without the walking papers from Congress.

Mr. EASLEY. We are asking for consideration on the basis that most of the small boat harbors in Alaska are for commercial fisheries. Although you will notice in Juneau that we have quite a bit of moorage for pleasure boats as well. But generally they are mixed use as opposed to most areas in the United States which are primarily pleasure craft only.

Of course fisheries to Alaska is a major industry.

Lieutenant Colonel DRISCOLL. You do have a good point there. If we are talking about the general category of small boat harbor and looking at size as a criteria, certainly the character of small boat harbors in Alaska is much different than it is down south where you really kind of feel hard pressed to work up a lot of sympathy for a guy who is having trouble parking his $30.000 yacht.

But up here it is different. It is a livelihood kind of thing. So I think the basic difference there is that.

In the major commercial harbors in the United States in the lower 48, this general principle is still applied. It may be that there is some rationale for not applying it so generally, particularly when you get up here where there is less of a pleasure aspect and more of a feeding people aspect.

Mr. EASLEY. We have only touched briefly in this report on that, but based on our conversation here I would like to develop it in more detail for you and give you a better description of each of our harbor facilities.

Senator GRAVEL. We will be happy to receive it.

In the Juneau or southeast area, what would be the top priority projects?

Mr. EASLEY. We have on appendix A of our submission a whole list of projects that we consider priority. I have attempted to list them in

order of priority, starting with Hoonah, Kake, Matlakatla, Haines, Wrangell, Gastineau Channel, of the southeastern group. [See p. 12.]

Senator GRAVEL. I notice that they are doing some dredging right now in the Gastineau Channel. Is there any way that we can coordinate the dredging for highway fill with that needed to meet navigational requirements and standards?

Lieutenant Colonel BAZILWICH. Yes, sir. We have looked at that in some detail up in the Alaska District. The method has been coordinated with the State. We had a test case of dredging to see whether this would stand up about 2 years ago. It worked very well. They are using this concept right now. They are dredging in the general area where the channel improvements are necessary. The big problem with Gastineau Channel is the silt problem. That has not been answered yet. We don't have a good answer for the silt problem. I don't know that there is an answer that can be economically applied to this area. Any answer that would solve the silt problem in its entirety would also be astronomical funding-wise. Anything that would be less than that in your maintenance cost on keeping the channel open would be astronomical.

So we are in an economic standoff right now. We can solve it, but it is just too much money.

Senator GRAVEL. For the maintenance?

Lieutenant Colonel BAZILWICH. Yes, sir.

Mr. EASLEY. Senator, if I might add to that, the highway department is considering a crossing in Gastineau now, a second bridge to replace the existing bridge. Of course the design of the bridge and the location of the bridge is greatly dependent upon your decision on the channel. If it is determined not to be feasible then the design would not provide for the passage of the major vessels. If it is feasible, of course it would.

I think we testified on that some time ago. That Gastineau Channel would have a significant impact on the operation of the Alaska State Ferries. There is no question about it.

Lieutenant Colonel BAZILWICH. We understand. It is just economics associated with that that are just not enough to give us the cost we need to build the project.

Senator GRAVEL. The siltation obviously comes from the tides, but on which side? Juneau is here and the channel is there; from which side is the silt coming?

Lieutenant Colonel BAZILWICH. It comes from both sides and kind of settles out in the middle. That is the problem. When you have the tides working both ways and you get the interaction and a static situation. and the silt drops out.

Senator GRAVEL. I was wondering if the bridge were designed as a causeway, with one passage through the middle, if that would suck up some of the siltation. Would it? Could some hydrology studies be done?

Lieutenant Colonel BAZILWICH. We have made some studies at our water experimental station where we have modeled the Gastineau Channel to determine what the effects of the siltation is and the maintenance aspects are. Like I said, the answer that we come up with is it is just too expensive.

I don't know about the bridge as a causeway type of situation. I would doubt that. As long as you had an entrance that would allow the silt-laden waters to go in and out you are going to have the silt problem.

Senator GRAVEL. If the opening is really narrowed down, I think you could stop 90 percent of the siltation from at least one side. This might change the hydrology of the channel on the other side. I am aware the deposit of silt could still take place.

Is there any chance to coordinate, let's say, the bridge design with some experimentations, and see if you come up with another model? If the cost of the bridge could be absorbed into what would otherwise have been a corps activity in any event, then the remaining expense would come down considerably. It might improve economic feasibility for the balance of the project.

Lieutenant Colonel BAZILWICH. Carl, have you ever looked at this aspect in your studies?

Senator GRAVEL. I think the concept has always been that of a high bridge. In the bridge-causeway design, you could have a bridge that opened up for the occasional boats or a ferry, while still being low enough so you would have access to it. If that design would change the channel hydrology, it might make some sense.

Mr. EASLEY. Over the landfill, probably a swinging bridge.

Lieutenant Colonel BAZILWICH. I can't make an engineering determination. At this point I don't think it would solve our problem enough to do the job, because the siltation is coming from both sides.

Senator GRAVEL. The causeway construction might change where the silt is deposited. It might be deposited on the banks of the causeway, which wouldn't be bad; you would have only to keep the center of it

open.

Lieutenant Colonel BAZILWICH. These model studies are rather expensive.

Senator GRAVEL. How much are we talking about? Would it take an appropriation?

Lieutenant Colonel BAZILWICH. $300,000 for the last model study. This is a regular project or study funds.

Senator GRAVEL. We will give some consideration to putting that in, if the State will cooperate on a new design feature. Obviously, at this point the channel project isn't economical, and it doesn't seem to be economical for the future. But if we tie it in with the bridge construction, we may be able to correct the siltation problem, and thus make it a feasible proposition all the way around.

Thank you very much, George.

[Mr. Easley's prepared statement and a letter from the Corps of Engineers follow:]

STATEMENT OF GEORGE W. EASLEY, COMMISSIONER, STATE OF ALASKA,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

PORT AND HARBOR FACILITIES

Introduction

The importance of waterborne commerce in the history of Alaska requires little explanation for it would be difficult to imagine development without waterborne commerce. From ancient native life styles, to our present complex civiliza

tion, waterways have provided the primary means of travel, communication and the exchange of ideas and commodities.

It is fortunate that nature has provided Alaska with a vast coastline and extensive navigable river system but it is unfortunate that the full employment of this natural transportation base has never been realized. Both major and minor ports are, in most cases, undersized, outmoded and inadequate to meet existing and future needs. Recent changes in shipping techniques and the trend toward larger vessels have, and will, require drastic improvements in Alaskan port facilities. These problems have already led to relatively high overall tariff rates and unless basic improvements are made it appears that general rate increases will follow, which in turn, will create a transportation burden detrimental to the economy of the State and it's people.

Financing harbor facility development

State. The "Water and Harbors Facilities Fund" was created in 1949 as the first step in providing a definite source of revenue for harbor facility construction in Alaska. The law provided that all monies collected from taxes on motor fuel used in boats and watercraft of all descriptions should be placed in this special dedicated fund in the Territorial Treasury to be used solely for the construction of harbor facilities. With Statehood, allocation of all monies came within the purview of the State Legislature and the Division of Water and Harbors was established as a principle division within the Department of Public Works for the purpose of administering the program. In 1962 the Legislature abolished the "Water and Harbors Facilities Fund" and provided that all marine fuel tax receipts be paid into a special account in the general fund called the "Watercraft Fuel Tax Account." The current statutory authority provides for a tax of four cents per gallon on all fuel sold, delivered or transferred within the State that is used in engines for the propulsion of boats and watercraft of all descriptions. The tax currently nets the State approximately 1.2 million dollars per year.

In 1972 the voters of the State approved the issuance of $10 million in general obligation bonds for small boat harbor development. These bonds will be used exclusively to finance the cost of berthing basin dredging and installation of mooring facilities in conjunction with new federal harbor projects. The first project authorized for construction, King Cove, is expected to be completed in early 1974.

Although these state revenues are considered adequate to finance the local cost of small boat harbor construction they are not sufficient to finance port development projects. There is currently no source of state assistance for the development or operation of deep draft port facilities in Alaska. The Department of Public Works has participated in the development of some medium draft dock facilities but activity has been limited due to funding restrictions. Federal highway funds have been used for the development of terminals serving Alaska Marine Highway vessels.

Federal. The Corps of Engineers has authority to make improvements in navigation for the purpose of the development, conduct and safety of waterborne commerce. This authority does not extend to the construction of dock, wharf or other structural facilities but is limited to such things as small boat harbor construction, deepening and widening waterways, protecting harbor entrances, removing obstructions to navigation and related work. The Economic Development Administration (Department of Commerce), through the Public Works and Development Act of 1965, has been the primary source for funding port facility development in Alaska in recent years. Projects have ranged from multimillion dollar complex facilities to simple, time tested and proven timber dock structures to handle the needs of the smaller communities. The amount of federal participation is dependent on several factors and, in some cases, may ap proach 100 percent. The time from inception to completion will vary from project to project but three years is usually considered as average. Projects are sponsored by local governments who prepare the necessary applications, finance the non-federal share of funding, and operate and maintain the completed facilities.

The President's proposed Federal budget for fiscal year 1974 calls for severe reductions in the funding level of the Public Works and Development Act of 1965. Considering the present economic condition of most communities in Alaska this will signal a virtual halt to any new port development or expansion rojects.