« PreviousContinue »
interfere with the heavier commercial boating. Commercial boating can be taken care of under the existing authorization.
What local interests request is that a small basin be provided for light pleasure craft, but they will insure that the basin be made available to all comers at equal terms.
The cost of the project would be $64,000, but we provide that local interests must pay one-half thereof.
The basin would be 510 feet long by 250 feet wide, by 7 feet deep.
I would like to read and put in the record at this point a quotation from chapter 26 of an act to amend section 3 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, approved June 13, 1902, as amended and supplemented, approved February 10, 1932, which states (reading]:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the first paragraph of section 3 of the act entitled "An act making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes," approved June 13, 1902, as amended and supplemented, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sentence: “As used in this section the term 'commerce shall include the use of waterways by seasonal passenger craft, yachts, houseboats, fishing boats, motorboats, and other similar water craft, whether or not operated for hire."
Although, therefore, we can by law give full cognizance and should by law give full cognizance to the requirements of pleasure boating, the Board feels that there should be a large measure of local cooperation, and that this project should be authorized only provided the local interests pay one-half of
the costs. Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Have you any estimate of the costs and benefits?
Colonel FERINGA. We did not try to do it. The benefits largely are imponderable.
Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. This is a project very similar to one we had a few days ago in Minnesota.
Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir, But in that case in Minnesota there were benefits to the commercial craft that went up and down the upper Mississippi River.
The benefits to commercial craft are sort of left-handed in this instance. They will benefit because you take all these lighter craft out of their way.
Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. There is a tremendous amount of commercial travel on that main channel, is there not?
Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir. But the commercial craft will be taken care of at other points rather than this boat basin.
Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Is that pretty thickly populated ?
Colonel FERINGA. The Illinois waterway; yes, sir. These are pools, locks, and dams. The waterway carries 5,000,000 tons of traffic.
The population of Peoria is 105,100. It is the second city of Illinois. Its industries include distilleries and the plants of the Caterpillar Tractor and the Tournier Cos. Its tributaries include the Illinois waterway, the southern part of Lake Michigan, and the Mississippi
River. That is one reason, of course, the Illinois waterway connects the waterway at Chicago, that is the Great Lakes system, with the Mississippi River system.
The transient recreational craft will benefit.
Colonel FERINGA. Suppose a yacht owner in Chicago wanted to go down to Florida. He would go by means of the Illinois waterway and by the Mississippi River, and Mr. Rankin's Tombigbee might go across the Tennessee and down this one, and finally find their way to Miami. I have seen many of the Great Lakes yachts in southern Florida.
Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Then I gather that this would be what you might term a stopping-off place for this craft, a place to put in.
Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir; and to service them also. The benefits to the Nation as a whole will be the industry made possible by the building of boats of that type and the servicing.
Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Do you have any other projects of this nature on the waterways now?
Colonel FERINGA. We have many of that nature on Long Island Sound, and in New England. In these projects which I have explained before the committee so far the only
one which I think is closely similar is that on at Mission Bay, Calif., which Mr. Izac just testified to, where we also required a large measure of local cooperation.
Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Then it is not unusual for you to bring in a project of this kind. I mean, you have brought in other similar projects.
Colonel FERINGA. Well, this would be one or two out of a total of 56.
Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. What I wanted you to bring out, you have built projects of this kind in other sections and other waterways?
Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir; and in each of those cases we always require a large measure of local cooperation.
Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Has there been any opposition to this project?
Colonel FERINGA. No, sir. I did want to point out to the committee though, that it is for pleasure boating, and that is why we have that large amount of local cooperation.
Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. We will insert your statement at this point.
(The statement is as follows:)
ILLINOIS RIVER AT PEORIA, ILL.
The report on Illinois River at Peoria, ill., is in response to a resolution adopted October 16, 1944, by the Rivers and Harbors Committee.
The Illinois River is a portion of the Illinois waterway, which connects the Mississippi River with the Great Lakes. Illinois River flows southwesterly to the Mississippi River at Grafton, Ill., a total distance of 273 miles. Peoria is located at about le 162.
The existing project on the Illinois waterway provides for a channel 9 feet deep and 300 feet wide from the Mississippi River to Lockport, Ill. There is no Federal project for the improvement of harbor facilities on the Illinois River.
Barge traffic on the Illinois waterway in the vicinity of Peoria in 1944 amounted to more than 5,000,000 tons, of which 4,600,000 tons was up-bound.
Recreational boating is increasing rapidly at and in the vicinity of Peoria. Fifty recreational craft are presently owned locally and about 100 transient boats visit Peoria during the summer.
Peoria, with a population of 105,100, is the second city of Illinois. Its industries include distilleries, and the plants of the Caterpillar Tractor and Le Tourneau Cos. Tributary areas for recreational craft include the Illinois waterway, the southern part of Lake Michigan, and the Mississippi River between St. Louis and Davenport, Iowa.
Recreational interests desire a small-boat harbor providing a safe anchorage at the site now being used. They claim that this site is a convenient stopping place for recreational traffic moving between Chicago and St. Louis, that boating is a growing activity, requiring additional facilities, and that a boat harbor would shelter such craft from dangerous exposure to commercial tows in the present anchorage and thus be an advantage to both commercial and pleasure interests.
The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors finds that safe and adequate mooring for recreational craft may be provided by construction of a basin 510 feet by 250, dredged to a depth of 7 feet and protected by an earth embankment riprapped on the lakeside. This would provide anchorage for about 100 craft.
The Board accordingly recommends that the existing project for the Illinois waterway be modified to provide for construction of a small-boat harbor in the vicinity of Peoria, Ill., at mile 168 of the Illinois waterway.
The improvement is recommended subject to the condition that local interests contribute 50 percent of the first cost of the dredging and of the breakwater construction and furnish assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of War that they will (a) make provision for operation of the harbor and for the construction of the necessary bulkheads and of a public landing with servicing facilities for small boats available to all users on equal terms, (b) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction and maintenance of the works, and (c) provide, without cost to the United States, all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for the construction of the project. Cost to United States for new work...
$32, 100 Cash contribution by local interests_
Cost of construction.
64, 100 5, 900
Annual Federal cost for maintenance_.
1,000 1, 200
Total Federal annual carrying charges---
2, 200 Monetary benefits have not been evaluated. The present anchorage used by recreational craft is dangerous to the small craft and a menace to the commercial commerce using the channel. The project is justified by the increased safety and convenience to existing small boat traffic and by general benefits from the manufacture and repair of boats and the sale of supplies.
HONOLULU HARBOR, T. H. Colonel FERINGA. We have one other project, Mr. Chairman, and that is for Honolulu Harbor. This is in addition to the one for the Columbia River, in which Mr. Angell is interested.
I again have complete notes on this project, but in brief I might invite the attention of the committee to the fact that the commerce of Honolulu Harbor increased from 2,113,000 tons in 1935 to 3,354,000 tons in 1940, and averaged 2,532,000 tons for the 6-year period.
We recommend that the portion of Honolulu Harbor which is indicated on the chart in pink, and which has been provided as a war measure
Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. You mean on this chart?
Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir; on your chart. The one that you and Mr. Angell have before you.
It is similar to other projects which we have explained heretofore, that it was found necessary during the war, as a wartime measure, to deepen, to enlarge the existing harbor. The enlargement is complete. We are without authority to maintain it.
The additional cost for maintenance, and that is annual maintenance, is $10,000.
The recommendation of the Board [reading]: The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors recommends that the existing project for improvement of Honolulu. Harbor be modified to provide a depth of 35 feet over the full width of 600 feet through the reserve channel; a turning basin in Kapalama Basin 35 feet deep by 1,000 feet wide and 3,000 feet long; and a slip of like depth 1,000 feet long on the easterly side of pier 39, at no additional cost for initial construction and with $10,000 annually for maintenance in addition to the amount presently authorized for maintenance of Honolulu Harbor, Hawaii.
Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. You have a 35-foot depth?
Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir. That was done as a wartime measure without previous authority from this committee. Now we recommend that that project be authorized so we can maintain it.
Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. This is another project similar to the one you had ?
Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir, I think there are a total of four or five projects of that type that I have explained to the committee.
Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. But in this instance it will take additional funds?
Colonel FERINGA. No, sir; only maintenance money. No additional funds, for new work.
Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. The money is already provided or will be provided ?
Colonel FERINGA. It has been provided, it is complete, it has been paid for. We just want the authority to maintain it.
Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. How much did the Government spend on the development of this project initially?
Colonel FERINGA. I do not know, sir.
Mr. ANGELL. Colonel Feringa, does this have any reference to the damage from the recent tornado, the tidal wave there?
Colonel FERINGA. No, sir. We have an item, Mr. Angell, I think before Mr. Peterson's committee, where we requested additional funds for a jetty at Hilo Harbor. That Hilo Harbor jetty was demolished in part by the recent tidal wave, although it was built strongly enough to withstand storms of the last 20 years.
Mr. ANGELL. That is what I was leading up to. I just came from the Committee on the Territories where we had hearings on the damage, particularly at Hilo and other parts of the Territory. The question arose as to what would be necessary to secure authority for the engineers, Army engineers, to make a resurvey of that harbor to see what should be done about it.
Colonel FERINGA. An item could be put in the proposed rivers and harbors bill.
Mr. ANGELL. Could we not, by a simple resolution of this committee, ask for a resurvey?
Colonel FERINGA. You could, but I recommend placing this as a survey item. I hope the bill will be reported favorably and it would be taken care of that way.
Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. It may be necessary to handle it that way rather than include it in the Territories Committee, although we could express the necessity of it.
Mr. ANGELL. I had in mind that this procedure might be quicker. It may take quite a while to get this bill through the Congress. It might not get through this year.
Colonel FERINGA. I will ask Mr. Muller to make a note of it at this time, and if the bill does not get through in time I will bring it to Mr. McGann's attention for a request for the resolution at that time.
Mr. ANGELL. I would like to make certain that all the authority necessary is given, so that the Army engineers can proceed without delay to survey the whole situation.
Colonel FERINGA. Survey Hilo Harbor? Mr. ANGELL. Yes. Colonel FERINGA. Incidentally, the funds for the emergent part of that work were made available; a long-distance call came in and we made it available at once because we knew the pending appropriation bill was practically being signed and we also submitted to the Bureau of the Budget an item of $2,500,000, roughly, which I would have testified for at Mr. Peterson's committee except that I was here.
Mr. ANGELL. Your associate said you would be before the committee but you were then testifying elsewhere.
Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. You already recommended to the Budget?
Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir; $2,500,000, roughly.
Colonel FERINGA. That will restore the breakwater. I had the pleasure of talking to Colonel Robinson, a district engineer out there and a personal friend. I was disturbed for fear the breakwater was not strong enough in the first place. He said they went into it rather completely and it had withstood 20 years of severe storm and it was only this unusual act of God which breached it.
Nr. PETERSON of Georgia. Is there any opposition to this?
Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. We will insert your statement at this point.
(The statement is as follows:)
HONOLULU HARBOR, T. H.
The report on Honolulu Harbor, T. H., in response to a resolution adopted by the Rivers and Harbors Committe on October 19, 1945.
Honolulu Harbor is located on the south coast of the island of Oahu, about 7 miles east of the entrance to Pearl Harbor.
The existing project provides for an entrance channel 40 feet deep and 500 feet wide; a harbor basin 35 feet deep and about 1,520 feet wide and 3,300 feet long; and a channel known as the Reserve Channel 35 feet deep and 4,000 feet long extending from the harbor basin to Kapalama Basin, 1,000 feet wide through the first 1,000 feet, thence 400 feet wide through the remaining distance. Utilizing funds provided by wartime appropriations, the United States Army dredged a turning basin approximately 3,000 feet long and 1,000 feet wide in Kapalama Basin, slips adjacent to piers 39 and 40, and enlarged the 400-foot section of the Reserve Channel to a width of 600 feet and depth of 35 feet. The harbor now contains 7 piers which are owned by the Federal Government, 14 by the Territorial government, and 17 by private interests. Seven of the privately owned piers are now leased by the United States Army. The Army has also constructed a concrete sheet pile barge mooring wharf 470 feet long in the mouth of Kapalama drainage canal shoreward of pier 39; a timber pile marginal wharf 4,000 feet long along the southerly side of the Reserve Channel and Kapalama Basin; a slip in the northerly side of Kapalama Basin 200 feet wide by 500 feet long and 30 feet deep for mooring barges and small vessels; a dredge and marine repair slip 250 feet wide and 700 feet long with extensive marine repair facilities on Sand Island; and extensive storage and terminal facilities in the vicinity of piers 39 and 40.