Page images
PDF
EPUB

damages due to construction and maintenance of the work. The cost to the United States for the new work is $1,271,750, and the total annual carrying charges, including maintenance, amount to $55,016.

The improvement will provide for the safety and convenience of existing and prospective future commerce. The deepening will provide adequate draft for the larger new type tankers now becoming more general in use. The Board, as an indication of the benefits creditable to the proposed improvements, estimates annual savings in the shipment of petroleum products through the prevention of delay by unfavorable tides amounting to $74,000. This item, which in itself provides a ratio of costs to benefits of 1 to 1.34, together with unevaluated savings in the shipment of other commodities and the general benefits to navigation, clearly indicates economic justification for the improvement.

In accordance with the present law we had to send this report, as we do all other reports, to the governor, and he has written back favorably on it, and the Budget Bureau has also made a favorable report.

I understand that Mr. Hallet, who is a member of the Maine Port Authority, and Mr. Kimball, who is secretary for the Maine Port Authority, are present.

I also want to bring out that General Weart is here from the North Atlantic division.

Mr. PITTENGER. What are those large bodies of land there [indicating on map]? I do not quite understand the map from where I sit.

Colonel FERINGA. Portland Harbor is a landlocked harbor, like many other harbors are. This is the land [indicating] in this reddishbrown color.

Mr. PITTENGER. What is that area to the right [indicating]?

Colonel FERINGA. That is Cushing Island. That is an island at the entrance of the harbor.

Mr. PITTENGER. In other words, you have got one of the greatest harbors in the world from the standpoint of protection?

Colonel FERINGA. That is absolutely correct. It is a wonderful harbor.

Mr. DONDERO. Do you mean to say that the Bureau of the Budget passes upon these projects before we come into the picture?

Colonel FERINGA. Before we send the reports to Congress we have to determine from the Bureau of the Budget whether or not they are in accordance with the program of the President. Most of them

state that the project is in accordance with the program of the President.

Mr. DONDERO. Suppose this committee was whole-heartedly in favor of some particular project, and the Bureau of the Budget takes the position that it should not be completed or constructed: do I understand that neither Congress nor this committee would have any opportunity to consider that project?

Colonel FERINGA. No, sir. The report, then would come to this committee with a statement by the Bureau of the Budget that they have considered this report and that it is not in accordance with the program of the President; but it would not be denied to this committee.

Mr. McDoNOUGH. I would like to inform the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dondero] that that is the case as to one of the projects before us, the canal from Suisum Bay to Sacramento. The Bureau of the Budget is opposed to it and states in its communication that it is not in accordance with the President's program.

Mr. DONDERO. What is it that determines in the mind of the Bureau of the Budget whether a project is in accordance with the program of the President or is not?

Colonel FERINGA. Let me also speak about the project on the Sacramento which comes up tomorrow. In that case the Bureau of the Budget had, I think, five specific doubts concerning that project, and each one of those doubts I am quite sure in my own mind we can remove by a subsequent letter to the Bureau of the Budget, and I am hopeful that they will remove their objection and find that it will then be in accordance with the program of the President.

In one instance they found that the benefits were not sufficiently great. I am in position to point out that we have always determined our benefits in a very conservative manner and can cite many projects where we stated a certain amount of tonnage would be carried, and 5 or 6 years later that tonnage had been exceeded two or three or four times, indicating that our estimates are conservative.

Mr. DONDERO. My complaint is this, that it seems to me that the Bureau of the Budget is substituting itself in the place of this committee appointed by the Congress definitely to discharge its responsibilities to the Nation on these river and harbor projects. If it is to take the place of this committee in determining when and when not a project shall reach Congress for action, it seems to me that this committee is almost a superfluous body.

Mr. McDoNOUGH. I would like to ask the colonel in reference to the project which we are hearing now, Portland, Maine, or any other project that will come before the committee, what is the yardstick that the Army engineers use in their recommendations insofar as the cost of the project compares with the benefits to the public as a whole. Let me ask the question by stating the answer. Is not that yardstick used on the basis that the cost shall never exceed the general benefits?

Colonel FERINGA. That is correct, sir, with some small exceptions, for instance, in harbors of refuge, where we cannot measure life in dollars and cents. But, generally speaking, your statement is absolutely correct. If a project does not meet the requirements we state that it is not justified, unless we state in the project document that some other reasons exist

Mr. McDONOUGH. Unless, for instance, it is a matter of national defense?

Colonel FERINGA. I am thinking of some flood-control projects, where the economic ratio might not be sufficient to offset cost. But the Flood Control Act also specifically provides that we must take into account the loss of life, and then the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, if there is a bona fide danger of loss of life if the project is not carried out, points out to Congress in its report that, due to that reason, it still makes a favorable report.

The same thing applies to the harbors of refuge on the Great Lakes. It is hard to state that they are economically justified in dollars and cents, but recurring loss of life throws the balance in favor of those projects. In every instance we point that out to Congress.

Mr. McDonough. Since that is true, that the costs shall not exceed the benefits, then how much in excess are the benefits to the costs

[ocr errors]

individually in most of these projects? How close would you come to a balance there?

Colonel FERINGA. It varies.

Mr. McDonough. In this instance you said it was benefits 1.34 to costs 1.

Colonel FERINGA. That is right; and that is only taking in the benefits related to the oil tonnage. It was not necessary to try to evaluate the many imponderable benefits that undoubtedly the gentlemen from Portland can point out better than I can.

Mr. McDoNOUGH. It may prove to be one to two or one to three?
Colonel FERINGA. Very true.

Mr. McDonoHGH. But you are certain that the cost at the present time does not exceed the benefits that will immediately accrue if the project is constructed?

Colonel FERINGA. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to get one point clarified. I noticed that Mr. Dondero is not here at the moment. The flood control bill of 1944 required all these matters submitted to the governors, and they are sent to the Budget Bureau, but this committee nor Congress is not bound by their recommendations. We can hear them and projects that the President objected to were often adopted? Colonel FERINGA. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. There were several in the last river and harbor bill that did not have Budget approval, but we considered the Budget's objections and overrode them and the President approved the bill. We do not hear from the governors on many of these matters. If we do, we will of course consider the governors recommendations, but we are not bound by them.

Mr. ANGELL. May I ask, Colonel Feringa, whether the Bureau of the Budget and the President have technical data and information to enable them to pass upon these matters?: Colonel FERINGA: We pass our reports through the Secretary of War to the Bureau of the Budget. I may say that I know some of the gentlemen that are on the Directors' staff and that they are very able.

. Of course I cannot pass on the propriety of their action, but I do know that they have some able people on the Bureau of the Budget staff.

Mr. ANGELL. Do they base their decision upon your reports and the technical information that the Corps of Army Engineers has assembled?

Colonel FERINGA. Yes; they do. All of our reports go through them. It has been done that way since, I think, 1938. They found five reasons for stating that the particular project for the Sacramento River was not in accordance with the program of the President, but I believe I can resolve all their doubts.

Mr. McDonough. Before this hearing is concluded ?
Colonel FERINGA. I hope so.

Mr. DONDERO. Just as a matter of record, are the railroads opposing this project?

Colonel FERINGA. The railroads, so far as I know, have not said “Yes” or “No” with reference to this project, Mr. Dondero. I do not see Mr. Pittenger here.

Mr. DONDERO. I am sorry that he is not here.
Colonel FERINGA. That is all I have on Portland, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Is Mr. Hale here?

Mr. HALE. I would like to introduced Mr. Hallet, the director of the Maine Port Authority. I think he can answer quite a few of the questions in which the committee is interested.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD M. HALLET, DIRECTOR, MAINE PORT

AUTHORITY, PORTLAND, MAINE Mr. Hallet. I can say that the attitude of the Maine Port Authority is unchanged; it is the same as it was when we testified before the United States engineers in Portland, in December 1944. I have no doubt that you have a transcript of that testimony; but in general it has not been changed. It was all favorable, and we certainly were and are in favor of the development.

I thought that I had a few figures which might clear up something about this part of the channel, the inner harbor (indicating on map), which it is proposed to develop from a 30-foot depth to a 35-foot channel and increase to 400 feet the bottom width. It is already 380, but it shelves in. That is not a very great widening, but it is a good deepening.

The reason is that we have 11 oil companies and a pipe line, and that business is growing, and it is growing in heavier ships all the time.

The CHAIRMAN. What territory does it serve?
Mr. HALLETT. It goes to Montreal, sir.

Mr. COLE. What contribution is the pipe-line company making toward this improvement, or what contribution is being made by any other local interest or local owners?

Mr. HALLET. I think, none. I think the engineers have stated that there are no local contributions.

Mr. COLE. They said you could tell us about that.

Mr. HALLET. Then I can say that none is contemplated. I think that is fair to say.

The port authority is extending the capacity of the State pier, and that is a contribution to the general development of the harbor. But you refer, Congressman, to a contribution to the actual work of dredging, the actual operation?

Mr. COLE. Yes. · Mr. HALLET. No. I think that there is no contribution contemplated.

Mr. COLE. That being the case, then, this project is constructed solely from Federal funds!

Mr. HALLET. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Í do not think that they ever required local contribution on the dredging of harbors.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Does the city provide areas for the disposal of the waste material?

Mr. HALLET. I should say that it does. I think I would want to know, if I were an engineer, which way the material went, whether it was dumped at sea.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. This recommendation is subject to the condition that they provide such areas. That is in all of the projects.

Mr. HALLET. With regard to the tanker situation, we had before the war tankers which averaged a 26-to-27-foot depth loaded. They came up through the Portland Bridge and through the Vaughan Bridge when necessary, and they found it very hard to do. The biggest ones can come out on high tide, but they could not get in. Even with the 27-foot depth they felt they had too little under their keel.

Now they have gone to a much bigger type of ship. I know at the December 1944 meeting in Portland Mr. Knappen, who spoke for the American Merchant Marine Institute, said that the bulk of the oil business after the war would be carried in the bigger T-2 tankers; and that is what is taking place. We have bigger tankers of 525 feet, and they run up to 30- or 31-foot draft, and they are now coming in. We have a record from December of last year to March of this year, a period of 4 months, in which 103 tankers have come through the Portland Bridge and gone up to Vaughan Bridge and over to these oil companies. Seventeen out of the one hundred and three drew over 28 feet, which is a little too much for the 30-foot channel at mean low water, and would mean that they would have to wait tide. Eighteen drew 27 to 28 feet. That is still too large.

Twenty-two percent drew 28 feet or more. We had 13 ships that drew over 29 feet, and about a half dozen of the actual T-2 type, a very large tanker, which obviously could not come into a 30-foot channel when it drew 31 or 32 feet.

Those are the figures at that end of the transaction. That is the reason why we need the 35 feet.

This draw [indicating on map], I believe, is going to be widened. The ships that come in here past the draw have to come out stern first, and a turning basin of 600 feet is essential to getting them turned around comfortably and headed out.

The CHAIRMAN. This improvement when carried out will be ample for all the tankers that will be engaged in that trade?

Mr. HALLET. I think, Mr. Chairman, that that can be said.

The CHAIRMAN. Admiral Vickery told me, just a short while before his death, that one tanker had been constructed with a draft of 34 feet, but it was the only tanker that had that depth.

Mr. HALLET. Of course they may go to larger tankers, but they do not contemplate it. The 26 and 27 footers, a great many of them, were knocked out in the war. They were sunk and are out of the way

and they are not building those small tankers any more. They will more and more build the T-2 type, and that is what we have to reckon with.

The CHAIRMAN. The Government has 400 tankers for sale, if someone will buy them and put them into operation. Sixty-two of them are of the Liberty type. Mr. HALLET. The bigger the better for modern oil carriage.

I might say that the Navy-one of the Congressmen asked about the Navy--still retains a couple of piers over here [indicating on map] which do not really come into intensified operation; and Admiral Jonas Ingraham told me that the harbor would be a main anchorage for the Navy. Destroyers are coming in there that go on around into the Sound and do not use this place [indicating]. The Navy has a reservation on our State pier which will be a small one and hardly more than a boat landing, as far as that goes.

This, of course, is the main development [indicating]. The proj. ected breakwater, which is a part of the plan, is of course to break the force of the sea which comes in against these piers and makes the

« PreviousContinue »