Mr. GEELAN. Because there is many a slip between the cap and the lip, between this committee and the Bureau of the Budget and the Appropriations Committee. By the time this is on the floor of Congress we very often do not know what we have before us. That happened very recently, in the last appropriation bill. Mr. ANGELL. In connection with these 50 projects and those that have already been authorized and not constructed, General, in ordinary procedure, assuming that appropriations are made as needed, how long will it take the War Department to construct all these projects? General WHEELER. All the projects that are authorized? Mr. ANGELL. Yes; including these we are now considering. General WHEELER. There are so many factors that are involved in that first, the available labor and available materials. But assuming conditions that existed prewar, for example, when we seemed to have plenty of labor and materials, and based, of course, upon regular appropriations in accordance with our plan, I would say that we could complete them-and this is just a guess, and I would like to check it later-in from 6 to 10 years. Mr. RANKIN. General, during the last Congress we had up the matter of the Tennessee-Tombigbee waterway. It was objected to by Members of the House and Senate because the Chief of Engineers had not signed the report. They asked that a new report be made. That report has been made, has it not? General WHEELER. Yes, sir. Mr. RANKIN. And has been signed by the Chief of Engineers? Mr. RANKIN. It is a favorable report, I believe? General WHEELER. Yes. Mr. RANKIN. As I understand it, the locks have been made standard, have been increased from 75 by 450 feet, as originally proposed, to 110 feet by 600 feet? General WHEELER. Yes. Mr. RANKIN. That is the standard size of the lock on the Ohio, the upper Mississippi, the Missouri River, and also the Illinois River? General WHEELER. Yes, except that there are no locks on the Missouri River. Mr. RANKIN. So that that would make this canal a part of our great inland waterway system and it would enable every barge that is used on any of these streams to pass through this cut-off? General WHEELER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. We have no locks on the Missouri. At Mr. RANKIN. We probably will have on the upper Missouri. any rate, all the barges on that river can go through this waterway, and all the traffic that goes to Chicago, St. Louis, St. Paul, Minneapolis, and to any ports on the Great Lakes and any points on the upper Ohio all the way to Pittsburgh, Pa., can pass through these locks provided for in this report on the Tombigbee inland waterway? General WHEELER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. It is a uniform system throughout? General WHEELER. Yes. Mr. RANKIN. This Tennessee-Tombigbee is one of the projects included in your list, is it not? General WHEELER. Yes, sir. (Informal discussion off the record.) The CHAIRMAN. We want to thank you again, General. Portland Harbor, Maine, I believe is scheduled for first consideration this morning. PORTLAND HARBOR, MAINE (H. Doc. 510, 79th Cong.) STATEMENT OF COL. P. A. FERINGA, UNITED STATES ARMY, RESIDENT ENGINEER, BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS The CHAIRMAN. Colonel, you have before you Document 510 on Portland Harbor, Maine, have you? Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hale, was it Portland Harbor that you were interested in? Mr. HALE. Yes, sir. I have here two witnesses, one representing the Maine Port Authority, and the other a representative of the Propeller Club of Portland. The CHAIRMAN. We will hear Colonel Feringa and then hear you and your witnesses. Will you please proceed, Colonel? Mr. RANKIN. Just a moment, please, if I may interrupt. It may be that the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Hale) might want to make his statement first in order to get away. He may have a short statement to make; and every member of the House is very busy now, judging from my own experience. The CHAIRMAN. I think we ought to have the Colonel's statement first.. Colonel FERINGA. It will not take long. Portland Harbor, Maine, is a very important port on the northeastern seaboard. We have here on my right a large map indicating the various types of information which I am about to discuss, and Mr. Muller will point them out as I proceed. The report on Portland Harbor is submitted in response to a resolution adopted by this committee on June 6, 1939. Portland Harbor is on the southeast end of Casco Bay on the Maine coast 100 miles northeast of Boston, and the harbor is divided into an inner harbor and an outer harbor. Fore River enters the inner harbor. The existing Federal project provides for a depth of 35 feet in the seaward section of the inner harbor at and below Maine State Pier, in an anchorage area of 170 acres between Diamond Island Ledge and House Island, and in the main ship channel entering the harbor from the southeast between Portland Head and Cushing Island, including removal to a depth of 40 feet of two rock ledges in the ship channel Mr. DONDERO. Do the shaded portions of that map indicate the proposed improvement? Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir. The heavy blue is the part that we are going to ask the committee to authorize. Mr. DONDERO. The shaded part, the lighter blue-what is that? Colonel FERINGA. That is part of the project that has been previously improved by the United States Government; and the balance of the blue is the way the project exists in nature. Mr. RANKIN. What is the cost of the project? Colonel FERINGA. The cost of additional work will be $1,271,750. Mr. RANKIN. It is merely to deepen the channel, is it? Colonel FERINGA. To deepen the channel, which is now 30 feet deep, to 35 feet. Mr. RANKIN. That is to enable ocean-going vessels to enter? Mr. DONDERO. Have we a naval installation there? Colonel FERINGA. We have, and it is very active. Mr. COLE. What would be the width of the channel as proposed? Colonel FERINGA. It would be about 400 feet, and widened in certain parts to 700 feet. It will vary from 400 feet to 700 feet. Mr. RANKIN. Would that enable battleships to enter that harbor? Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir. Mr. RANKIN. Would it enable any ship that sails the oceans to enter that harbor? Colonel FERINGA. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. It would at least be on an equality with Philadelphia and Baltimore. Mr. RANKIN. And Boston? Colonel FERINGA. Generally speaking, yes, sir. Mr. RANKIN. What is the depth of the present channel? Colonel FERINGA. The shaded light part of the channel is 35 feet, and the part that is very heavy blue is now 30 feet, and we recommend that it be deepened to 35 feet. The CHAIRMAN. Very few ships would require greater depth than that? Colonel FERINGA. That is very true, Judge. The CHAIRMAN. New York Harbor is the only American harbor where it is practicable to handle ships like the Queen Mary, for instance? Colonel FERINGA. Yes. Those are the only type ships that would not be able to enter this harbor. At certain conditions of the tide they could probably get in here, but there is no reason for it. The only reason we are recommending the deepening of the harbor, and many other harbors, is to take care of the deeper-draft oil tankers that have been constructed during the war to a draft which is greater than it has been in the past, and in order to take full advantage of that deep-draft tonnage it is advisable to authorize the deepening, and we will show later that it is economically justified. Mr. RANKIN. How long is that project in miles? Colonel FERINGA. I would have to estimate it. The improvement proposed is about three miles long. Mr. RANKIN. The heavy-draft tankers at the present time are so large that they have to stay on the outside, we will say; they cannot get into the main harbor? Colonel FERINGA. They would have to stay in the outer harbor. But it also makes possible the development of this port. Presently the deep water in that port is limited to the outer harbor or the upper end. Consequently, all the wharfage and the balance of this territory that is available in the southern part is denied, the advantage of having deep water ships come to those docks. Mr. RANKIN. How about the inner harbor? Colonel FERINGA. It is 30 feet now, and we are recommending that it be deepened to 35 feet. Mr. COLE. Where is the naval installation? Colonel FERINGA. I think the Navy makes use of the entire port. I will leave that to the two gentlemen from Portland who are here, as they are very familiar with the local conditions. Mr. COLE. Is the Navy concerned with this new project? Colonel FERINGA. We are not recommending it from the standpoint of a requirement of the Navy, but from the standpoint of the requirement for normal commerce. The Navy is making extensive use of the port. But we are not recommending it as a measure for the Navy. lt stands on its own feet. Mr. RANKIN. I think you misundestood me a while ago. I asked as to the depth of the inner harbor itself. Colonel FERINGA. It is now 30 feet. Mr. RANKIN. Then you have to do some deepening after you get into the harbor? Colonel FERINGA. That is what we are going to recommend—that it be deepened to 35 feet. Mr. RANKIN. But that is not shown on this map? Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir. Here (indicating on map) is the inner harbor that is now 30 feet deep. Mr. RANKIN. What about that body of water where your hand was just now, down at the extreme left? Colonel FERINGA. We are not recommending that anything be done there. The turning basin, which is at the head of the inner harbor, is right here (indicating). Mr. MCDONOUGH. Is that a strip of land at the end of that blue portion? Colonel FERINGA. No, sir. It is a continued body of water, but that is not part of the harbor. It is a continuation of this body of water (indicating). Mr. RANKIN. This does not involve the Passamaquoddy project? Colonel FERINGA. No, sir; it has nothing to do with Passamaquoddy. Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Does the city or municipality contribute to the development of this project? Colonel FERINGA. They are to save the United States from all damage incidental to the work. Also the Port of Portland Authority has developed plans for the acquisition of wharf properties along the requested 35-foot channel improvement and the construction of 2 ocean terminals, a fish pier and a public landing for small boats at an estimated cost of $10,500,000. Mr. DONDERO. Then there is no connection between the deepening of this harbor to 35 feet and keeping out that type of commerce from the St. Lawrence waterway which is only proposed to be 30 feet? Colonel FERINGA. I do not think so. Mr. PITTENGER. In other words, it is all right to have a deep harbor when my distinguished friend recommends it in his district, but it is a bad thing to have more than 14 feet of depth in the St. Lawrence seaway. It looks to me like you ought to do some missionary work up in New England. Colonel FERINGA. We had better not get into that part of the argument. It is a different type of shipping. Mr. FITTENGER. I am for this development. I think you need it up there. Mr. COLE. Has not the Navy done some deepening there? Colonel FERINGA. In the last river and harbor act there was an item for deepening part of the harbor, I think, called Soldiers Lodge, and that was done at the distinct request of the Navy. The Navy does make use of that port, being the northernmost port in the United States on the eastern shore of the United States. Mr. COLE. There was no contribution from the civic community? Colonel FERINGA. No; not on that part. Water-borne commerce averaged 3,537,000 tons annually in the 5-year period 1939 to 1943, ranging from 3,121,000 in 1939 to 4,234,000 in 1941. The principal commodities consisted of petroleum products, wheat, coal, wood pulp, sulphur, and fish. Portland is the largest city and the principal port of Maine. It serves Maine and central New Hampshire, also the central and eastern Canadian provinces when the St. Lawrence River is closed by ice. Mr. DONDERO. I wonder what the purpose of that last phrase was. Colonel FERINGA. I cannot answer that question; it is taken out of our report, Mr. Dondero. Mr. PITTENGER. You do not have to be so modest, Colonel. Colonel FERINGA. The local interests desire deepening to 40 feet at mean low water of the northerly half of the main ship channel to the Grand Trunk wharves; deepening to 35 feet of the present 30-foot channel through the upper end of the inner harbor, including its extension up Fore River; provision of a turning basin in Fore River easterly of Vaughan Bridge, and the construction of a breakwater at Spring Point. They advocate the breakwater to aid in the elimination of the ground swell which affects the inner harbor and the easterly portion of the Portland water front. The Port of Portland Authority has developed plans for the acquisition of wharf properties along the requested 35-foot channel improvement and the construction of two ocean terminals, a fish pier, and a public landing for small boats at an estimated cost of $10,500,000. The Board recommends modification of the existing project for Portland Harbor, Maine, to provide for deepening to 35 feet for the full width of the present 30-foot inner harbor channel from the Maine .State pier to Portland Bridge, deepening to 35 feet and widening to · 400 feet of the Fore River channel between Portland Bridge and Vaughan Bridge, deepening to 35 feet of the present Fore River channel between Vaughan Bridge and the Boston & Maine Railroad. bridge, widening the channel easterly of Vaughan Bridge to a maximum of about 700 feet to form a turning basin 35 feet deep, constructing a stone breakwater from Spring Point to Spring Point Light. The improvement is recommended subject to the condition that local interests agree to hold and save the United States free from |