Page images
PDF
EPUB

Senator, that on the Stratford side of the river, adjoining our Housatonic River, there are over 400 acres zoned for light industrial use. If the river was dredged as proposed, one's imagination would not have to be too vivid to realize the potential industrial use of the deepened and widened channel by the Stratford industries already there in bringing fuel as well as the possible shipping of manufactured products.

May it be further pointed out that before this beach erosion control was considered, the Housatonic River dredging project was deemed worthwhile based upon a high ratio of benefit to cost ascertained by our United States Army engineers. If we add the beach and shore restoration value it is obvious that the contemplated dredging will have great advantages for the welfare of the State of Connecticut as well as the town of Stratford.

I might point out that back in 1947, when there was a bill introduced in the general assembly of the State of Connecticut concerning 6 critical areas of our shoreline, where the beaches were slipping into Long Island Sound, that Stratford and Milford were 2 of those 5 critical areas, and since that time neither one of those towns has been able to do anything to correct the erosion, and nature, in its ugly force, in 1950 and in November of 1952, did still greater damage. This can be corrected on both of these towns if the dredging is accomplished.

CHANNEL DEPTH

Senator HAYDEN. I would like to ask what is the depth of the channel to be dredged?

Mr. WELDON. Well, Senator, it is now supposed to be 7 feet; but I understand it is nearer 6 feet.

Senator HAYDEN. How deep will it be when it is finished?
Mr. WELDON. 18 feet deep by 200 feet wide.

Senator HAYDEN. Is that deep enough to allow an oil carrier to come in?

Mr. WELDON. Yes.
Senator HAYDEN. And ships of that size?
Mr. WELDON. That is right.

Senator HAYDEN. I understood that larger ships required greater depth.

Mr. WELDON. That is right. In fact, the depth at mean low water is so low today that a keel boat that drew only 5 feet-and the man who owns this boat happens to be a member of our town council-struck bottom coming up the river. This is a boat without even an engine. That gives you some indication of how shallow our river is.

BUDGET ESTIMATE

Senator ROBERTSON. I would say, for the benefit of Senator Hayden, that the Army engineers recommended $500,000 to carry on the work in the budget, and the budget estimate is $500,000, and these gentlemen are asking us to approve the budget estimate.

Mr. WELDON. In closing, gentlemen, I might add that there are approximately 300 pleasure boats at an estimated worth of over a million dollars that use this river, which, of course, is a tax benefit to the State of Connecticut as well as to the town of Stratford.

I would like to leave, for the purposes of the record, with your committee's permission, a clipping from our weekly newspaper, the Stratford News, as of November 19, 1953, which portrays our Short Beach area where the sand is to be pumped if the river is dredged. And you will note this is headed "Will Old Man Housatonic Need Paving If It Isn't Dredged ?"

Senator ROBERTSON. Without objection, it is so ordered. You understand that we can print the article but not the picture.

Mr. WELDON. Yes, sir.
(The article referred to was filed with the committee.)

Senator ROBERTSON. The Chair is glad to recognize the Senator from Connecticut.

FOLLY BROOK PROJECT

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM A. PURTELL, A UNITED STATES

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

GENERAL STATEMENT Senator PURTELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, while I wish to express my interest in three different projects this morning, I am going to be very brief.

I appeared before this committee last year appealing to you for the inclusion of funds in the civil functions appropriation for the Folly Brook project. At that time I discussed the project at some length and submitted numerous exhibits to substantiate my contention that there was an urgent need for the completion of this remaining portion of the Connecticut River flood-control project, approved June 28, 1938. The situation remains unchanged. The need has become increasingly necessary. My previous testimony might well stand with but one exception. Last year the Bureau of the Budget did not include funds for that project in its revised estimate. This year they have recommended that the necessary funds for the completion of the Folly Brook project be authorized and included in this year's appropriation. I so urge you, gentlemen, that this be done.

HOUSATONIC RIVER DREDGING PROJECT

The Housatonic River dredging project was authorized back in the 70th Congress, but to date no funds have been appropriated to carry out these much-needed improvements, in spite of the fact that, in keeping with the provisions of the act, local interests long ago indicated their willingness to contribute $150,000 toward the cost of the work and furnish, free of cost to the United States, suitable bulkhead areas for the deposit of dredge material, or, in lieu thereof, contribute an additional $50,000 in cash.

I will not burden you with a long dissertation as to the merits of the project, the benefits to be derived from savings and in the development of the area. They are vast and numerous and are in the public interest. There are experts and technicians in the field here today, some of whom you have heard, and I believe you will hear more on this matter before this morning is over, and they are much better able to discuss the technical phases of this than I am. I merely urge that favorable consideration be given to the project in the light of these representations and the recommendation of the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of the Budget that funds be appropriated to undertake work on this long overdue project. I beg your sympathetic interest and consideration.

BEACH EROSION PROGRAM, AREA I-WESTPORT AND FAIRFIELD We have one other matter which has been called to my attention recently by our Governor, and that is the question of the beach-erosion program, “Area I-Westport and Fairfield.”

Without touching on the technical phases or engineering aspects, I shall, as briefly as possible, attempt to give you the background, purpose, description, benefits, and justification of the beach erosion control project. Because the item is not included in the Bureau of the Budget estimate which is before you, gentlemen, it will be necessary to cover this item in a little more detail. This area was the first of the 11 physiographical areas into which our entire Connecticut coastline was divided, to be surveyed and reported upon by the United States Corps of Army Engineers in cooperation with the State of Connecticut under the provisions of section 2 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, approved July 3, 1930, as amended and supplemented. It is the only study which has been approved by Congress, but to date no Federal funds have been appropriated to match State funds now available for work within this area.

The area of the Connecticut shore concerned in this report is an extension of some 9.2 miles from Ash Creek to Saugatuck River. This shore area is adjacent to and west of Bridgeport and is about 40 to 50 miles east of New York City. The entire Fairfield County is in the southwestern part of Connecticut, in which this area is located, and is strongly influenced by its proximity to metropolitan New York.

BENEFITS ANTICIPATED

The benefits anticipated from the plans of improvement for the various shore areas are estimated solely on the recreational value of increased public beach areas. The basis of benefit evaluations used is a careful estimate of the value of recreational use of the shore to those attending the beaches. This estimate includes actual expenditure now made by those using the beaches, and excludes additional values received. Beach attendance at public beaches existent in area I is at substandard levels of space requirements for such attendance. Established standards of recreational beach areas indicate 75 square feet per person as an optimum. Present operating standards of peak beach use in the area under consideration indicate recreational beach area on the town public beaches of about 25 square feet per person and on Sherwood Island State Park Beach of 60 square feet per person over the entire beach, or 37.5 square feet per person over the more desirable part of the beach. In a densely settled section of the country such as Connecticut, attainment of the established standards of recreational beach areas is very doubtful but the requested improvements will raise the standards more nearly to the optimum. The major benefits for town public beaches are from this raising of the beach space standards, and secondary benefits are from an expected 10 percent increase in attendance. The major benefits to Sherwood Island State Park are from expected increased attendance, and secondary I would like to leave, for the purposes of the record, with your committee's permission, a clipping from our weekly newspaper, the Stratford News, as of November 19, 1953, which portrays our Short Beach area where the sand is to be pumped if the river is dredged. And you will note this is headed "Will Old Man Housatonic Need Paving If It Isn't Dredged ?”

Senator ROBERTSON. Without objection, it is so ordered. You understand that we can print the article but not the picture.

Mr. WELDON. Yes, sir.
(The article referred to was filed with the committee.)

Senator ROBERTSON. The Chair is glad to recognize the Senator from Connecticut.

FOLLY BROOK PROJECT

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM A. PURTELL, A UNITED STATES

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

GENERAL STATEMENT Senator PURTELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, while I wish to express my interest in three different projects this morning, I am going to be very brief.

I appeared before this committee last year appealing to you for the inclusion of funds in the civil functions appropriation for the Folly Brook project. At that time I discussed the project at some length and submitted numerous exhibits to substantiate my contention that there was an urgent need for the completion of this remaining portion of the Connecticut River flood-control project, approved June 28, 1938. The situation remains unchanged. The need has become increasingly necessary. My previous testimony might well stand with but one exception. Last year the Bureau of the Budget did not include funds for that project in its revised estimate. This year they have recommended that the necessary funds for the completion of the Folly Brook project be authorized and included in this year's appropriation. I so urge you, gentlemen, that this be done.

HOUSATONIC RIVER DREDGING PROJECT

The Housatonic River dredging project was anthorized back in the Toth Congress, but to date no funds have been appropriated to carry out these much-needed improvements, in spite of the fact that, in keeping with the provisions of the act, Jocal interests long ago indi. cated their willingness to contribute $150,000 toward the cost of the work and furnish, free of cost to the United States, suitable bulkhead areas for the deposit of drerige material, or, in lieu thereof, contribute an additional $50,000 in cash.

I will not burden you with a long dissertation as to the merits of the project, the benefits to be derived from savings and in the development of the area. They are vast and numerous and are in the public interest. There are experts and technicians in the field here today, some of whom you have heard, and I believe you will hear more on this matter before this morning is over, and they are much better able to discuss the technical phases of this than I am. I merely urge that favorable consideration be given to the project in the light of these representations and the recommendation of the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of the Budget that funds be appropriated to undertake work on this long overdue project. I beg your sympathetic interest and consideration.

Beach EROSION PROGRAM, AREA I-WESTPORT AND FAIRFIELD We have one other matter which has been called to my attention recently by our Governor, and that is the question of the beach-erosion program, “Area I-Westport and Fairfield.”

Without touching on the technical phases or engineering aspects, I shall, as briefly as possible, attempt to give you the background, purpose, description, benefits, and justification of the beach erosion control project. Because the item is not included in the Bureau of the Budget estimate which is before you, gentlemen, it will be necessary to cover this item in a little more detail. This area was the first of the 11 physiographical areas into which our entire Connecticut coastline was divided, to be surveyed and reported upon by the United States Corps of Army Engineers in cooperation with the State of Connecticut under the provisions of section 2 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, approved July 3, 1930, as amended and supplemented. It is the only study which has been approved by Congress, but to date no Federal funds have been appropriated to match State funds now available for work within this area.

The area of the Connectient shore concerned in this report is an extension of some 9.2 miles from Ash Creek to Saugatuck River. This shore area is adjacent to and west of Bridgeport and is about 40 to 50 miles east of New York City. The entire Fairfield County is in the southwestern part of Connecticut, in which this area is located, and is strongly influenced by its proximity to metropolitan New York.

BENEFITS ANTICIPATED The benefits anticipated from the plans of improvement for the various shore areas are estimated solely on the recreational value of increased public beach areas. The basis of benefit evaluations used is a careful estimate of the value of recreational use of the shore to those attending the beaches. This estimate includes actual expenditure now made by those using the beaches, and excludes additional values received. Beach attendance at public beaches existent in area I is at substandard levels of space requirements for such attendance. Established standards of recreational beach areas indicate 75 square feet per person as an optimum. Present operating standards of peak beach use in the area under consideration indicate recreational beach area on the town public beaches of about 25 square feet per person and on Sherwood Island State Park Beach of 60 square feet per person over the entire beach, or 37.5 square feet per person over the more desirable part of the beach. In a densely settled section of the country such as Connecticut, attainment of the established standards of recreational beach areas is very doubtful but the requested improvements will raise the standards more nearly to the optimum. The major benefits for town public beaches are from this raising of the beach spare standards, and secondary benefits are from an expected 10 percent increase in attendance. The major benefits to Sherwood Island State Park are from expected increased attendance, and secondary

« PreviousContinue »