head of this river, was completed in 1950 at a total expenditure of Government funds of about $13 million. As the Senator said a moment ago, we thought these other projects were a part of that same project. Nevertheless, they have been delayed. When the budget request came to complete the channelizing of Little Missouri River that full benefits may be attained from these projects as originally authorized for that area, we find this little creek was left out. LAND ACQUISITION BY GOVERNMENT Mr. Chairman, in 1941 the United States Government took over 60,000 acres of land right in the heart of this area, as fine lands as there are in the United States. It did this for the purpose of a proving ground. There are 3 distances in the Ozan Creek Valley-the south fork, the north fork, and the middle fork. Local interests, at great expense, channelized 2 of these forks. They come to a head just a few miles from the confluence of the Little Missouri River. All they are asking to do is to give a chance for that little distance to be opened up so the water can get out in view of the fact that the Government itself, through a roadbed, added to the flood damage in this area during the war. It is absolutely necessary if thousands of acres in this area are going to be relieved of this flood damage that this water be permitted to get out. A year ago the estimated cost was $52,000. Now it is estimated, if it is separate from the other project, that it would be $70,000. Consequently, it seemed to me that if both of these projects would be completed at the same time, it would be a saving to the Federal Government of several thousand dollars. We are earnestly urging that be done in connection with this program in order to complete it. Senator MCCLELLAN. I think it should be made very clear here that the local interest prior to the time that the Government condemned this property, took it over down there, and constructed that proving ground for the war, at their own cost, provided this drainage on these branches of the Ozan Creek. When the Government took over with its construction program in that area, they blocked this lower drainage that has aggravated the whole situation. What we are actually asking here is that the Government undo the very thing it did to injure these people after they made their own investment in draining their own property. It ought not be delayed. Representative HARRIS. That is true. I was born and reared in this community. I have been all over this area barefooted, on a horse, in à wagon. I have baled hay in this area and other types of farming. I know what the entire situation is. Furthermore, what Mr. Thatcher said is true, too, about the wear and tear of a Congressman and Senator. The maintenance for the locks and dams is included in the budget and we support that. CALION PROJECT I do want to put in a word for the Calion project which is a part of this program at Calion, Ark., for the protection of the town, the industry, and the people of the area. There is no request in the budget for it. But we hope to get that sometime. It will only cost about $530,000 to protect that area. Thank you very much for your consideration, Mr. Chairman. Senator YOUNG. We have Congressman Younger here along with a representative from Congressman Gubser's oflice. REDWOOD CITY, CALIF., PROJECT STATEMENT OF HON. J. ARTHUR YOUNGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUDGET RECOMMENDATION Representative YOUNGER. I am J. Arthur Younger, from the Ninth District of California in which the Redwood City Harbor item is involved, $1 million recommended in the budget. I want to emphasize one point which is important. This fund is essential to make 100 percent of the use of the money already invested in the port and in the harbor which the Government has heretofore invested in. I think that is one of the important things. You have the engineers' report which caused the Budget Bureau to put in the $1 million. It is recommended and endorsed by our two Senators. Thank you. Senator YOUNG. I have here a statement from Congressman Gubser who is unable to appear here. He has requested that it be submitted for the record, and it will be done. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN CHARLES S. GUBSER, 10TH DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA, REGARDING BUDGET FOR PORT OF REDWOOD CITY, Calie, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I respectfully request your approval of the $1 million item for the harbor of Redwood City, Calif. Although the port is not located in my district, I am particularly interested in its improvement because its facilities are used by industry located in my con gressional district, and would be used even more extensively once the port is improved. In this, I have the support of business and industry of my district, in uding the chambers of commerce of the cities of San Jose, Bar'a Cara, Moonikin View, and Sunnyvaje. Another group strongly advocating improvement of the port is the California Prune & Apricot Growers Association With Slating orden, won'd benefit from approval of this budget item. May I repeat, at this time some of the arguments presented to you during » nå lar bearings heid last spr.ng. Dried fruit and ued 2008 a scene of tral Ca forn a would benefit from the port in provetest tiroles resuno6. A their transportation costs and tirotet tuore es jed non lång Bents. Noile 20,990 tons of cat tee 200GR 2 Do drko frulare at to Atantie ports in five aliterenranta. trage from 13 a h**°ab*a* དྷལ༹པྤཡྻཔྤཨནྟི ན kippers must transport these milpinen's from their manita cara la my par læ to a dok at San Francisnt tha ang or A la ruega junon ti å trua lên đế avoue Semes. Consideratge congestani að Pier Dulteres at auri omaa Were these si jŋjærs alue to time tlak port of kovoti the improvemen's under the ₹ 111 VOL DUSE** R*IL 2** 11am - -* Lat Dom encountered at bat. Francisco 856 Lam kaj goma pont the truck bun, wou C be THCurr ནག་ཏུ ཐ The Permanente Cement Co., which operates one of the largest cement plants in the world, in my district, is also the largest user of the port of Redwood City. If one of the cement ships should be grounded or otherwise damaged through the present hazardous condition of the channel, this would be disastrous to the movement of a vital defense cargo, since there are no other such specialized ships available. During 1953 about 3 million barrels were shipped through the port by Permanente, and the company expects further increases in future shipments. Because of Permanente's unique and efficient bulk-loading and discharge method, the cement is laid down in Anchorage, Alaska, at a 25-percent saving to the Government below that of the cost of the old practice of shipping packaged cement. I also urge improvement of the port of Redwood City as a means of creating an alternate harbor for emergency use in war or other disaster periods. At present channel and harbor at Redwood City are inadequate for deepdraft vessels in loaded condition. Movement of these vessels can take place at high tide only. The channel is too narrow to permit movement of ships after dark. Thus, much time is lost while vessels wait for tide and daylight to sail. Often military assigned cargoes are involved. Another result of current conditions is the blocking of the channel for movement of other vessels when ships load or unload. Experts have predicted that within a mere 10 years San Jose will be the hub of a solid metropolitan area along San Francisco Bay to the Golden Gate in the west and Richmond in the east. No other section of California currently experiences the rate of industrial growth now taking place in Santa Clara County. An area of such present and future industrial activity, productivity, and potential should not be arbitrarily tied to shipping outlets in San Francisco and Oakland where dock facilities are relatively inaccessible, and expansion is expensive, if at all feasible. I urge approval of the $1 million budget item for improvement of the port of Redwood City, Calif. Representative YOUNGER. We have as our next witness, Mr. M. D. McCarl, port manager, Redwood City, Calif. STATEMENT OF MERRITT D. McCARL, MANAGER OF THE PORT OF REDWOOD CITY, CALIF. PREPARED STATEMENT Mr. McCARL. My name is Merritt D. McCarl. I am the manager of the port of Redwood City, Calif. I have here 15 copies of my statement with a number of exhibits attached to all copies. A few of the exhibits arrived too late to have copies made and attached to the statement. I will ask that the statement be supplied for the record. Senator YOUNG. That may be done, and the exhibits will be filed for the committee. (The material referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF MERRITT D. MCCARL, MANAGER OF THE PORT OF REDWOOD CITY, CALIF. Gentlemen, I wish to express to you my sincere appreciation for the opportunity to present to you this statement on behalf of the Board of Port Commissioners of the Port of Redwood City and the many people who are interested in the further development of the port. My name is Merritt D. McCarl. I am the manager of the port of Redwood City, Calif. I have held this position since March 1, 1948. Prior to that time, I was for 21 years traffic manager and assistant port manager of the port of Oakland, Calif. Prior to my association with the port of Oakland, I was for 15 years in the employ of the Commission of Public Docks, Portland, Oreg., serving in various capacities in the accounting, operating, and traffic departments. My total experience in port and terminal operating business exceeds 40 years. My purpose in presenting this statement to you is to request your full support for the item of $1 million for Redwood City Harbor improvements which is in the fiscal 1955 budget now before you. The inclusion of this item in the budget, which I understand is one of only a few such items for river and harbor work in the budget, was recommended by the Army engineers and carried the endorsement of Senator Knowland, Senator Kuchel, Congressman Younger, and Congressman Gubser. An item of $1 million for Redwood City Harbor was included in the budget of the last administration for fiscal year 1954, but was deleted in the revised budget of the new administration. During May 1953 the writer together with Congressman Younger and Congressman Gubser appeared before committees of the House and the Senate in an effort to have the item restored but were unsuccessful, due, I believe to the strict economy program of the new administration. Due to the strong recommendation of the Army engineers after careful study as to the urgent need for the requested appropriation, and the endorsement of the recommendation of the Army engineers by Senator Knowland, Congressman Younger, and Congressman Gubser following a meeting in San Mateo, Calif., which they attended and at which they learned through direct statements from port officials, steamship officials, terminal operators, representatives of the Bay Pilots Association, industrial groups, State officials, city officials, representatives from the principal chambers of commerce in San Mateo County and Santa Clara County, officials of the San Francisco Bay Area Council representing nine counties surrounding San Francisco Bay and other important interests as to the dire need of immediate improvements to Redwood City Harbor, including the deepening and widening of the channel across San Bruno Shoals, it is believed that it is unnecessary for me at this time to burden the committees of both Houses of Congress with further voluminous testimony. Information submitted last year is, of course, now available to the committees. There are, however, certain matters of special importance I should like to call specific attention to, which are as follows: 1. Endorsements In addition to the endorsement of the Army engineers and those of Senator Knowland, Senator Kuchel, Congressman Younger, and Congressman Gubser, the Redwood City Harbor improvement projects which were previously approved by Congress and for which funds are now requested (item in the budget), also carried the endorsements of the Secretary of the Navy as being essential to national defense and the endorsement of the State of California which stated amongst other things that "the improvement is needed to provide a suitable port for shippers in the area," and "the proposed works for improvements of the harbor are feasible from an engineering standpoint, and will function effectively for the purposes for which they are designed" and "based upon the findings in the report of the district engineer relative to the annual benefits as compared with the costs, the project is economically feasible and justified." 2. Present activity on waterway The present activity alone on the waterway, without taking into account the added activity which will result from improved channel conditions, necessitates immediate improvement of the channel. The number of oceangoing vessels and barges using the waterway and tons of cargo handled during the years 1952 and 1953 was as follows: A flow chart prepared by the Pacific Statistical Region, South Pacific Division, Corps of Engineers, under the direction of the division engineer reveals the following comparisons for outbound oceangoing commerce (commercial) handled during the year 1952 (latest figures available) at the following San Francisco Bay ports-San Francisco, Oakland-Alameda combined, Stockton, and Redwood City: Putting it another way, the port of Redwood City handled 77 percent as much of the cargo in question as the world famous port of San Francisco and 117 percent as much as the port of Stockton, the San Joaquin River port, on which a large amount of Federal funds have been expended. 3. Additional activity awaiting improved channel conditions Movement of canned goods and dried fruit produced in the Santa Clara and Salinas Valleys and along the San Francisco Peninsula. This potential tonnage was included in House Document 104 and used (in part) by the Army engineers in computing their benefit-cost ratio. The prospective movement is now considerably in excess of that taken into account by the Army engineers. Twentyone shippers and four chambers of commerce have consistently supported the port in an effort to obtain steamship service on regular schedule in the eastbound intercoastal trade route. In docket 30515 involving cargo handled under joint rates (ocean carrier and inland waterway carrier), the Interstate Commerce Commission ordered all of the existing operators to place the port of Redwood City and shippers in the South Bay area on a parity with other bay ports and shippers therefrom. The case was handled on a transhippment basis (movement from the port of Redwood City to San Francisco via barge; thence to Atlantic coast ports via vessel) due to existing adverse channel conditions for direct call of large oceangoing vessels (vessels in excess of 500 feet in length). at the port. The call of these vessels in addition to the large number of vessels and barges already using the waterway would not be practical. Rather than handle the large volume of cargo via transhipment, at very considerable expense to the intercoastal steamship operators, such operators discontinued the practice of handling cargo from any of the ports via transhipment. The desire of shippers in the port's tributary territory to route their shipments via the port of Redwood City rather than via upper bay ports, and thereby save $1 per ton, is evidenced by their statements made on several occasions under oath to the Interstate Commerce Commission (see exhibits A and B). Only one copy of these exhibits available for filing with respective committees of the House and the Senate. Following the decision of the existing carriers to discontinue the handling of cargo from all ports via transhippment, three large steamship operators—the West Coast Trans-Oceanic Line of Portland, Oreg. ; the General Steamship Corp. of San Francisco, Calif., (one of the oldest and most successful steamship organizations in the San Francisco Bay area), and Wright, Dichman & Pugh of New York filed application with the ICC for authority to engage in intercoastal service, carrying lumber from Pacific Northwest ports and canned goods, dried fruit, and general cargo from the port of Redwood City in the eastbound service and general cargo in the westbound service. The examiner for the Commission recommended that authority requested be granted for the eastbound service. He recommended, particularly, the granting of authority to carry cargo from the port of Redwood City, due to the indisputable evidence presented by shippers as to their desire to ship from the port of Redwood City rather than from other ports. Due to the lack of adequate westbound cargo, however, to warrant the entry of a new service at this time, the requested authority for the two-way service was not granted. The newly proposed service contemplated the use of Liberty ships (442 feet in length) whereas some of the vessels of existing carriers (C-4's) are 523 feet in length. Shippers have been repeatedly told by existing steamship operators that they will not send their large vessels to the port of Redwood City under existing channel conditions. It is known that vessels in the domestic and foreign trade routes will call at the port regularly as soon as channel conditions are improved. Recently two large vessels called at the port to load magnesite, in bulk, for movement to Europe. The two shipments of magnesite were valued at approximately $500,000. The shipments were handled by the port at the bulk loading |