gation improvement and development of the bay are not feasible unless flood control is provided on San Diego River. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors accordingly recommends modification of the existing flood-control project for San Diego River, Calif., to include a multiple-purpose project for flood control on San Diego River and small-boat navigation on Mission Bay, generally as follows: Construction of a leveed channel 800 feet wide with a capacity of 87,400 cubic feet per second from 0.4 mile above Morena Boulevard 3.3 miles directly to the ocean; dredging of an entrance channel 20 feet deep into Mission Bay and in the bay, a main channel and turning basin about 3,500 feet long and 1,000 feet wide, and two anchorage basins, one 3,000 feet long and 800 feet wide and the other about 1,600 feet long and 800 feet wide, all to a depth of 20 feet; construction of three jetties at the entrance, and stone revetment for the banks of the entrance and main channels and turning basin. The improvement is recommended subject to the provision that local interests provide the necessary bulkheading and give assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of War that they will (a) provide without cost to the United States all lands and rights-of-way, including spoil-disposal areas necessary for construction of the improvements; (b) make all necessary alterations to highway bridges, utilities, and side-drainage structures; (c) purchase and hold in the public interest the lands between the flood-control channel and Mission Bay west of Highway US 101; (d) prepare definite plans and construction schedules for the improvement of the bay area for park purposes, which shall be subject to approval by the Secretary of War; (e) complete the improvements of the 8-foot dredging and park development within 5 years after completion of the project; (f) provide adequate facilities for storage, maintenance, and supply of small craft; (g) maintain and operate the entire project, except maintenance of the jetties, stone revetment constructed by the United States, and project depths in areas dredged by the United States; (h) protect the carrying capacity of the flood-control channel from future encroachments or obstructions; and (i) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works.

The annual carrying charge, including Federal maintenance of $13,000 for the navigation improvement, is estimated at $697,000.

The Board has carefully considered the reports of the district and division engineers. It notes that the anticipated benefits include $170,000 from the fish catch, $132,000 from an increase in the tax base, and $257,000 in the form of taxes from the creation of new business, a total of $559,000. The Board is of the opinion that these items do not constitute benefits creditable to the project in the manner set forth in the report. It recognizes, however, that there are large potential benefits to be derived from the creation of new business and of recreational opportunities and it believes that at least 25 percent of the total value of these items may be credited to the improvement as a fair value of such benefits. The total annual benefits then become $813,900 as compared to the annual costs of $697,000, thereby indicating a benefit-cost ratio of 1.17 to 1.0. The Board therefore concludes that the improvement is eeconomically justified.

The Board notes that facilities in southern California for small craft are used to capacity and that additional facilities are therefore needed for the expanding small-craft fleet. The improvements, in addition to providing flood protection to the low areas around Mission Bay, would also provide a needed small-boat harbor with a safe navigable connection to the Pacific Ocean. The anticipated benefits are considered sufficient to justify construction of the improvements. Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. I notice Congressman Izac here.

STATEMENT OF HON. ED V. IZAC, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. IzAC. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee. I would like to develop the benefits regarding this project a little bit further than the colonel has.

I think he has covered the main essentials of the Government expenditure.

Now, about 1870, we had a flood problem in San Diego, small as the city was, because the waters of the San Diego were flowing down. into San Diego Bay, not Mission Bay.

In order to save the valuable lands there at the mouth of the river, the Government built this jetty, as you can see here [pointing to chart], to shunt the waters away from San Diego Bay and run them off into the ocean here at Mission Bay. That held for quite some time, although it had to be amplified and augmented and strengthened, and as late as the 1920's I saw a flood that I was sure was going to take out that dike, but by the help of Marines and Navy personnel, we managed to get sandbags sufficient to withstand that flood.

Immediately thereafter a study was made to see what had to be done to avoid this danger in the future. Now, the danger is not to just the sands in the mouth of the old river. In the meantime, we have built the Marine Corps base, the naval training station, and the Consolidated Vultee plant, employing 44,000 people during the war building aircraft for the Army and Navy, and all of those, in addition to the municipal airfield, lie athwart the old mouth of the river.

So it is very essential that we do not have any floods from now on. It is for that reason that a study was made, as I say, to see if we could not have a real flood-control channel out to Mission Bay instead of in to San Diego Bay, and as has just been stated, this $2,000,000 project, mostly at the expense of the Federal Government, and correctly so because it is strictly a flood-control project, is to be used to build a jetty here, a jetty there, and then dredge out this channel

between.

The San Diego River coming down from the gorge as it does will flow through this and go out unobstructed to the ocean.

Here is one reason why it costs the local interests so much money. When we build anything of this kind it means the relocation of bridges and boulevards, and in this case the main highway to Los Angeles has to be moved. All of the bridges will have to be moved, and that will be at the expense of the local people.

They have assumed that already in their appearance before the Army engineers. So much for that:

Now, we come to what I consider one of the great assets to the country that we will have if this river-and-harbor feature is carried to completion.

As you know, we have a high coast line on the west coast. In the east it is low. We have many indentations from the Rio Grande River up to Canada.

The type of coast line is such that it permits of harbors being built every few miles. You know if you have ever been fishing along the east coast, you can put in out of danger of storms every few miles because there is always a little harbor close by.

On the west coast it is entirely different. On the west coast, we have, starting at the Mexican line, only three or four natural harbors, the first one being San Diego Bay.

This committee made it possible for San Diego Bay to serve to such a great capacity in this war by authorizing the dredging program that I had the honor to present to the committee in 1937, my first appearance before any congressional committee.

That dredging program made it possible to use San Diego as a real harbor for our men-of-war during this war.

After you leave San Diego, the next harbor is Los Angeles, Long Beach, and that is a made harbor; it is not a natural harbor. In between, there is only one little port, you may call it, which was likewise developed by the Army engineers, Balboa, where you can put a few small vessels.

Next comes one or two little made harbors again like Huenemo, which we built in the war, and practically nothing of any account until you get to San Francisco Bay, and then all the way up to the Columbia River, and then to Puget Sound, practically nothing else on the west coast.

So it is very necessary for national defense purposes, and for normal peacetime purposes, for our patrol craft and for Coast Guard operations, to have all along the west coast sufficient harbors of the type that this project will provide.

You see, there will be nothing from Point Loma up to Balboa, 70 miles away, unless we open up the entrance to Mission Bay by putting two jetties here. One of the two jetties will be common with the jetty for the flood-control channel.

Those jetties, incidently, cost about a million and a half dollars. That is strictly, of course, a Government charge.

As we come in on the ocean side, the plan is to dredge an entrance channel to 20 feet which will make it possible to take practically all smaller vessels. Adjacent to this main channel there will be a boat basin on the right for repair and overhaul, a boat basin to the left for smaller craft, and by having 20 feet as far as this bridge shown here, it will be possible to place a great number of vessels there out of the storms as well as for laying up for repairs and for the ordinary uses of patrol craft.

Now, just a word about San Diego's end of this. Already we have spent over $4,000,000. It has not all been spent perhaps, but it is on the way and obligated. We have a dredge working there now. The city of San Diego is going to develop this into a very fine recreational

area.

At the present time those are mud flats covering that great expansion there. Right in practically the heart of the city of San Diego.

By dredging we will deepen this to 8, 10, and 12 feet, and up to 20 feet, for various purposes. A power-boat course, yachting all through, and a rowing course; it even provides an airfield and a seaplane base. At the present time there is a development here in Mission Beach of an amusement center. That, naturally, vastly enlarged by this noject, we think will bring great numbers of tourists to our area.

That might not seem of such great importance to you gentlemen, were it not for the fact that when the war ended 52,000 of our people lost their jobs as a result of cancellation of contracts. In a town of our size, 52,000 jobs is a lot of jobs.

Mr. DONDERO. What is the size of the city?

Mr. Izac. 202,000 in the 1940 census. 363,000 the other day, when they finished the next census. You see, we had a census paid for by the city, and it was just completed a few days ago-363,000, quite an increase from 202,000.

Now, with that great number of unemployed, the mayor and the city officials have plans for putting great numbers of people to work on this project. As I say, they have issued bonds, $2,000,000 in one lump sum. They have spent or obligated all told about $4,500,000 on getting their end done, or at least the preliminary work. They were unable to have the State take care of the bridges and boulevards, but they are going to use the gas tax fund for that purpose. So all of their part is taken care of. All we need now is to have a favorable report from you gentlemen, with the Government providing its logical share of the cost, and developing for the use of the Nation this harbor that is so badly needed, as are all harbors on the west coast.

The flood control, of course, you can see from this chart. That is a necessary thing to safeguard the Government capital investments that have already been made in the great establishments we have in the mouth of the San Diego River. We must have that flood control regardless of anything else; and with that going hand in hand with this other development, as you can see, it will redound to the benefit, not only of the city of San Diego, but to the Nation as a whole. Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Congressman, is there any opposition to this project?

Mr. Izac. As far as I know, there has not been a word said against it. I understood from the mayor that the bird refuge this has always been a great bird refuge-that the Wildlife Service was a little worried about it at first, so our people agreed to set aside this whole area, and another section here, for bird refuge—a real wildlife refuge. I understand that that meets with the approval of the Wildlife Service. Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. I would like to state, Congressman Izac, that the subcommittee of this committee dealing primarily with beacherosion matters had the pleasure of visiting your fair city last summer, and we were very graciously and very royally entertained, and in addition, we had an opportunity to go over your water front and see your problems there.

We think you are fortunate in having a number of this committee who were able to get first-hand information on what you are attempting to do.

Mr. Izac. I am sorry I was not able to be there at the time. I was on an investigation in the Pacific. I had heard that the members had been there and made the studies and incidentally made a very fine impression on our people.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. We were delighted to see that the distinguished gentleman was held in high esteem by his constituents, and I assure you that your constituents are fortunate in having you here to promote this project and look after their interests in this Rivers and Harbors Committee, as well as the other committees of Congress. Mr. Izac. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Does anybody else wish to appear in this matter?

(No response.)

SCHUYLKILL RIVER AT PHILADELPHIA, PA.

Colonel FERINGA. Mr. Chairman, this is a report on the Schuylkill River which differs from the report that I previously presented to this committee which dealt with the upper river, from this point north. The former report which I presented dealt with the removal of clum, and the improvement of the upper Schuylkill River, and that would be done by a large measure of local cooperation furnished by the State. Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. As I recall, that was primarily from a health and sanitation standpoint.

Colonel FERINGA. Flood control, health, sanitation, also navigation benefits because the culm from the upper river was washed into the lower river.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. But so far as that project is concerned, there is no navigation on it?

Colonel FERINGA. That is right.

This project deals solely with the navigation. The present project which we hope will be authorized.

We propose to deepen this portion of the waterway from its confluence with the Delaware River to Penrose Ferry Road, to 33 feet. It is now 30 feet deep and 400 feet wide. We recommend it be deepened to 33 feet.

Also, from Penrose Ferry Road to Passyunk Avenue we propose to recommend that it be deepened to 33 feet. It is now 30 feet by 300. We recommend 33 feet by 300 feet.

Finally from Passyunk Avenue to University Avenue, where the channel has been allowed to fall in disrepair, we recommend that it be restored to a depth of 26 feet and a width of 200 feet.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Where is Philadelphia in respect to that? Colonel FERINGA. It goes right through Philadelphia. On this north corner of the map is that rich parkway section which I previously explained during flood would be covered by about 5 inches of culm.

The cost of the project for new work to the Federal Government would be $2,024,000. The annual commerce now being carried by this part of the waterway amounts to 5,430,000 tons, and the ratio of cost to benefits is 1 as to 2.74.

The Governor of Pennsylvania is so much in favor of it that when he knew the Board considered it he did not wait for us to send or report to him, but he sent down a wire stating that he hoped it would be authorized.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Is there any objection to that?
Colonel FERINGA. No objection, sir.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. I gather that is very badly needed. Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir; for these deeper draft ships which you have heard so much about.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. That ratio is very good, too.

Colonel FERINGA. It is high, sir. Of course, it is high because the channel has already been provided and the additional amount of work to be done is comparatively slight.