Page images

what we are preparing to do, all of which depends on your approval of the work as recommended by the United States Engineers.


Previous to 1940, at which time coastwise steamers were beginning to be withdrawn from service to Bridgeport due to war conditions, our general merchandise tonnage, consisting mostly of intercoastal and Great Lakes business, hit a peak of 65,115 net tons and this gradually drifted down to nothing because all boats were taken off the run, but despite this fact our total tonnage for 1944, the last figures obtainable, was 1,875,949 net tons, and had we had the general merchandise tonnage we would have reached a high figure of 1,941,064 net tons, which shows the ranking that should be given our harbor project.

The Cilco Terminal Co., Inc., has recently spent $25,000 for new conveyor equipment and it is their intention to dredge from 28 feet to 32 feet at low water, at their own expense, in front of the wharf so as to insure safe docking for larger steamers.

You will also note that their anticipated volume of lumber for the next year to meet the demands of the veterans housing program will approximate 100,000,000 feet and that they alone expect the volume of business upwards of 500,000 tons moving in 200 deep-draft steamers, and so forth, all of which is other than petroleum products and includes general cargo. See letter, dated April 4 marked "Exhibit G."

In addition to the above, the General American Tank Storage Terminals contemplate a public storage terminal in our harbor for the storage of the following commodities among others: Petroleum products, coconut oil, fish oil, cottonseed oil, and molasses, on a site adjacent to Johnson's Creek, and a letter they wrote to the district engineer, United States Engineers' office, Providence, R. I., on April 4 (copy attached marked "Exhibit H”) indicates that they would expect an annual business of handling petroleum products in a volume of about 300,000 tons per year, most of which would be brought in by tanker and about one-third of it would move out by barge to other points and other States. This, of course, cannot be accomplished without the digging of our channel, the making of a turning basin and deepening of Johnson's River.

This 300,000 net tons in and 100,000 net tons out is new business and would bring our tonnage to a higher peak than we have ever reached before.

Two ships which came in recently to the Cilco Terminal carrying lumber were both of the Victory type, 455 feet long, 62-foot beam, drawing a maximum of 28.6 feet.

This is the type of ship we must cope with insofar as general cargo and lumber is concerned and its deep draft requires even more than this 30-foot channel which we are asking for, which means they cannot come in fully loaded except at about half or full tide.

The length of this ship should make it evident that we need the 30-foot turning basin recommended by the United States engineers.

In addition, the large tankers are approximately 535 feet long, a beam of over 70 feet and draw from 30 to 32 feet of water, consequently their needs are in excess of that of the Victory ships.


BASIN, AND DEEPENING OF MAIN CHANNEL At the present time there are five concerns contemplating dock facilities, pipe lines, and petroleum and other liquid products storage who conservatively will spend in excess of $750,000.

A considerable portion of this money will be used for private dredging of the channels and terminaling basins to berth general-cargo vessels and large tankers and the movement of coastal barges for incoming and outgoing shipments.

Letters from some of the above five concerns are attached herewith; others are being sent to you direct.


It is conservatively estimated by the elimination of the movement of our petroleum products into this area by the use of trucks and barges that there would be an annual saving to this community and the hinterland in excess of $700,000 a year.

With this substantial saving, together with the $399,844 a year saving of products other than petroleum as shown in our original brief, making for a total of $1,099,844 there should be no question but what the United States Government should pay the entire cost of the dredging and turning basin as recommended by the United States engineers. Respectfully submitted,



(H. Dọc. 517, 79th Cong.)



Colonel FERINGA. Mr. Chairman, the report on New Haven Harbor, Conn., is in response to a resolution adopted by the Rivers and Harbors Committee on August 28, 1944.

New Haven Harbor is on the north shore of Long Island Sound about 70 miles east of New York City. It is a tidal bay 1 to 4 miles wide extending 41,2 miles northward from the breakwater protection at the entrance to just below Tomlinson Bridge in New Haven. Quinnipiac and Mill Rivers join and flow into the upper end of the harbor and West River enters from the west between West Haven and New Haven. The mean range of tide is 6.3 feet at the head of the harbor.

The existing project provides for a channel 30 feet deep and 400 feet wide from deep water in Long Island Sound to opposite Fort Hale, thence of the same depth 500 feet wide to Tomlinson Bridge with widening in the bend opposite Long wharf and directly above New Haven terminal to 1,111 feet.

Deepening of the present 25-foot main channel and the 16-foot anchorage basin to 30 feet and dredging a new 16-foot anchorage basin at an estimated cost of $1,673,000 with additional annual maintenance of $12,250, was authorized by the River and Harbor Act approved March 2, 1945, but no work has been done under this authorization.

Here is another instance of a harbor which was authorized for deepening, and rather than expend the funds piecemeal we come before you asking for additional authorization so that saving can be made and the whole construction done at one time. I will bring out the costs later on.

Mr. GEELAN. At this point I wonder if it might not be well to have the record show that authorization was made for deepening the harbor to 30 feet from its present 25-foot depth, estimated to cost $1,673,000, and it is now felt by the engineers that it can be accomplished for $700,000.

Colonel FERINGA. I will bring those costs out later on, because I have bulked the costs.

Mr. GEELAN. That is the testimony before the Senate Committee on Appropriations as to costs to complete the 30-foot depth and as to the sum of money upon which the recommendation of the Army engineers, Colonel Stratton speaking for them, I believe, has been approved by the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

Colonel FERINGA. That amount of money would start the project, and if this additional deepening could be authorized the whole thing could be advertised at the same time.

Mr. GEELAN. That is correct.

Colonel FERINGA. The commerce of New Haven Harbor, including its tributary channels, amounted to over 4,000,000 tons annually for the 3 years prior to the war. Ninety-five percent of this consisted of coal, coke and petroleum products. Commerce on the Quinnipiac River in recent years has averaged 600,000 tons annually.

In 1941 vessels drawing up to 27 feet used the main harbor for a total of 3,483 in-bound and out-bound trips, and on the Quinnipiac River vessels drawing up to 16 feet made 2,123 trips.

The area tributary to New Haven comprises approximately 40 percent of the State of Connecticut and has a population of over 1,000,000 of which 750,000 is located in 17 principal cities and towns. Manufacturing of steel and iron articles, firearms, brass and copper goods, silverware and rubber goods is the principal industry. Production of airplane engines, propellers, and other aircraft parts is also important.

The Board recommends modification of the existing project for New Haven Harbor, Conn., to provide for construction of a main channel 35 feet deep at mean low_water, 400 to 800 feet wide from Long Island Sound to Tomlinson Bridge, and change in the location and extent of the 16-foot anchorage basin, at an estimated cost to the United States of $3,200.000 for construction; in lieu of unconstructed modifications previously authorized with estimated costs of $1,673,000; also for construction of a channel in Quinnipiac River from the head of the main harbor 22 feet deep at mean low water and 250 to 400 feet wide to a point about 1,000 feet above Ferry Street, with a turning basin 22 feet deep, 200 to 800 feet wide and 700 feet long at the mouth of Mill River.

That item for Quinnipiac River was in the last river and harbor bill as it passed the House and was changed in the Senate due to the late Senator Maloney requesting that the item be left out because it would interfere with a gas main belonging to a local gas company. The report as now written will obviate all difficulty. I believe it is very desirable that Quinnipiac River also be improved at this time.

The improvement is subject to the conditions that local interests furnish free of cost to the United States all lands, easements and rightsof-way and suitably bulkheaded spoil-disposal areas for the initial work and for subsequent maintenance when and as required, and hold and save the United States free from damages resulting from the improvement.

The cost to the United States for new work is $3,460,000; annual cost of maintenance, $12,000; interest and amortization, $138,200; total annual carrying charges, $150,200.

Annual savings would result from economies in the use of the larger vessels fully loaded, and from avoidance of delays awaiting favorable tides, also from the additional postwar commerce that is expected to seek the port upon assurance of adequate depth. Savings are estimated to total $726,000 for the main harbor and $40,000 for the Quinnipiac.

The ratio of estimated annual costs to annual savings is 1 to 5.3 for the main harbor improvements and 1 to 3.3 for the Quinnipiac River improvements.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. That is a very good showing.

Colonel FERINGA. It is a very high showing, and probably is brought about by the fact that it is a prosperous harbor and its additional depth will make it even more popular, and it serves a large trade area. Also, sometimes district engineers in making their reports endeavor to make as large a showing as possible, whereas in other cases very frequently they feel that inasmuch as a favorable ratio has been established, why go any further?

In accordance with existing law reports were sent to the Governor. He was in favor of the project; and the Budget Bureau had no comment to offer thereon.

That completes New Haven Harbor.

Mr. GEELAN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Arthur Gosselin, of New Haven, chairman of the Port Survey Commission of the State of Connecticut, would like to be heard briefly on this project.



Mr. GOSSELIN. In connection with this spoilage, there is going to be developed 464 acres of new land and it is proposed that there will be spent about $9,000,000 by local interests. On the east side of the harbor the oil companies there are going to expand their facilities as soon as the 35-foot channel is authorized, and there will be spent $3,000,000 in connection with that. They do not have deep water facilities at present and they propose to develop back in here (indicating on map] oil terminals using this pier in connection with one of the other oil companies to get the oil back to their area.

Then we have another area of approximately 300 acres that will be developed from the spoil; and in West Haven, Conn., we have 119 acres developed with the spoil from the harbor. That, we estimate, will bring in approximately $15,000,000.

So we feel that this project is a very worth-while one and one that is going to be very beneficial to about 85 percent of the people of the State.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. I understand that this new land that is to be built up from the spoil

Mr. GOSSELIN. They are going to bulkhead it.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Does that belong to the Government, then?

Mr. GOSSELIN. I was just going to mention the fact that the State of Connecticut at the last general assembly, created the Connecticut Port Survey Commission to investigate all navigable waters of the State as to what benefits would be given to the people by the development of those waters, and there is a possibility of creating a port authority that would have the right to issue bonds to create these developments, and they would belong to the State.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. This land is being built up on account of the soil

that is being dredged out of the channel ? Mr. GOSSELIN. Yes, sir. There is a foot of water in here (indicating on map], and the railroad owns the ferrying rights. The New Haven has the second largest freight terminal yard in the United States, where they can handle 15,000 cars a day; and had this water been deepened to 30 feet back in 1939 we would have had an excellent port where there was no congestion, where they could come in with four railroads via Springfield into New Haven where the cars could be handled very easily. Previously they told us we would have to have a terminal. We now have one that runs around one and a quarter million dollars. There will be other facilities developed all along through here (indicating on map): The State is very much interested in all of these areas and facts are being brought out. Bridgeport has the lowest oil storage of any place on the New England coast. They rank twenty-seventh in the United States industrially, and they were in pretty bad shape during the last war. They were down to 2 days of oil supply in Bridgeport, and it might have shut down the entire city had they not been able to get oil in there, whereas if they had the proper tankage there that could not have happened to them.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all petroleum products, is it not? There is no crude oil there? No oil is refined there?

Mr. GOSSELIN. No, sir. Whether these oil companies propose to do that or not I do not know. I know that one proposes to build a plant, but I do not know what type of plant it is going to be. The state is trying to do its part to take care of the unemployment situation. The improvemen will bring an additional pay roll between $3,000,000 and $4,000,000 and will give employment to a great many people.

The CHAIRMAN. During the war, when I with others was trying to work out plans to get gasoline for the eastern seaboard, when tankers could not operate, the fact developed that quite a lot of people were using kerosene for fuel in that section of the country. Is that the case now?

Mr. GOSSELIN. No, it is not. There was a lot of kerosene came in, but there is not much today.

The CHAIRMAN. In Massachusetts there was more kerosene?

Mr. GOSSELIN. I know they used to transport some kerosene from Albany down to Connecticut.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any pipe lines opening there?

Mr. GOSSELIN. There is one that runs from Frovidence to Springfield, but there is none at New Haven at the present time. I am not familiar with the plans of the oil companies as to whether they propose one or not.

Mr. GEELAN. In response to the question by Mr. Peterson of Georgia as to who would own this created land. The fact is that that land is now marshland, is it not?


Mr. GEELAN. And it is now the property of the State or the municipality ?

Mr. GOSSELIN. Some of it in the upper Middletown section belongs to the State. It was taken over by foreclosure because of nonpayment of taxes. The land is absolutely worthless at the present time.

Mr. GEELAN. What will result by the filling in of these marshland areas will be the creation of firm land, and the same thing would take

« PreviousContinue »