« PreviousContinue »
place here as takes place in other places in the United States. When land is filled the land becomes the property of the State or the municipality?
Mr. GOSSELIN. That is correct. We have a lot of mud that has got to go out some place, and they will pump it up into this area [indicating] and it will take about 3 years to settle and develop. They used sand down in West Haven.
The CHAIRMAN. How much land would be made firm
Mr. GOSSELIN. About 1,200 acres. There is about 11,100,000 cubic yards of fill to be taken out.
The objection that was brought up by the late Senator Maloney has been overcome, and
the New Haven Gas Co. is perfectly satisfied. The CHAIRMAN. There is no objection to it from them?
Mr. GOSSELIN. No, sir; and the New Haven Railroad is very much in favor of the development.
Mr. GEELAN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Knappen also wanted to be heard briefly on this project.
STATEMENT OF THEODORE KNAPPEN, REPRESENTING THE
AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE INSTITUTE
Mr. KNAPPEN. The American Merchant Marine Institute represents the majority of the ocean ship operators of the United States. The American Merchant Marine would like to see the channel in this harbor deepened to 35 feet, principally to accommodate the large tankers which have been developed during the war and which are now being put in operation to move petroleum products from the Gulf area to the Eastern seaboard.
In this particular case we have already spoken at the hearing for this project and I am also here for the Portland project. The direct benefits, we have shown, would be very large and would justify this work.
We would also like to point out that in addition to these direct benefits which come from the utilization of these tankers which have already been built, it is possible to build these T-2 tankers and use them, because most of the ports of the United States have 34 and 35 foot depths; that is, most of the major ports; and other ports that have around 30 feet have sufficient tide to permit the tankers to come in at high water.
The benefits which will accrue in many of these cases are only the benefits which will come by not having to wait for tides and the elimination of delay, but possibly in some cases there will be the utilization of the full capacity of these tankers. That is a benefit which is now working to the benefit of the entire country in that these larger tankers now represent an annual saving of somewhere in the neighborhood of $10,000,000 a year in the movement of petroleum products from the Gulf coast to the East coast of the United States.
I would like to further point out that the general establishment of 35-foot ports on the East coast and 36-foot ports on the Gulf coast will permit future development of more economical units and will give, in addition to the direct benefits in each case, indirect benefits which generally are at least as great as and sometimes many times greater than the direct benefits which will follow.
Mr. AUCHINCLOSs. You have made an excellent statement.
Mr. KNAPPEN. I thank you, sir.
Mr. GEELAN. I would like to call attention to the fact that since May 18, 1942, by reason of the inability to secure tankers to operate safely in the open sea, all the coal and oil moving into New England came by rail or by pipe line. The difference in the cost between shipments by rail and pipe line, which had to be resorted to, and transportation by water was made up by what was called a compensatory adjustment program. In other words, the shippers, in order to hold the consumer price down, were paid the difference between what they would have to pay for shipment by water and what they were forced to pay for shipment by rail
. That program will be in effect until June 30 of this year, at least, with the very great possibility that it will be continued in dollars and cents up until March.
That sum of money for New England ports, New York, and Philadeplphia amounted to $55,000,000 for coal alone, and in New Haven Harbor that sum was $5,000,000.
These ships that are used for coal cannot negotiate these harbors successfully with the present depths. It is necessary, therefore, to deepen the harbors and continue this compensatory program,
I ask unanimous consent that the other members of the delegation be permitted to insert in the record any statement they may care to make concerning these projects.
I thank the Chairman and the members for permitting us to go on at this time. The CHAIRMAN. We will take a recess until 2 o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 12:45 o'clock p. m., a recess was taken until 2 o'clock p. m. of the same day.)
The Committee reconvened at 2 p. m., the Honorable Joseph J. Mansfield, Chairman, presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. Suppose we go ahead with Fall River.
STATEMENT OF COL. P. A. FERINGA, RESIDENT MEMBER OF
THE BOARD FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS
Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir.
FALL RIVER HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS
Fall River Harbor is in southeastern Massachusetts 20 miles southeast of Providence Harbor and 13 miles northwest of New Bedford Harbor. It comprises the mouth of Taunton River and the head and east side of Mount Hope Bay and has a total length of 6 miles and widths decreasing from 212 miles in the bay to 1,000 feet at the head.
The improvement authorized by Congress provides for a channel 30 feet deep and 400 feet wide through Mount Hope Bay and Fall River Harbor to the oil wharves above the bridges with increased width opposite the wharves below Slades Ferry Bridge.
Commerce at the harbor averages over 1,900,000 tons annually for the ten years prior to the war. During the years 1938 to 1941, coal, coke, and petroleum products constituted 98 percent of the total commerce which was transported in ships drawing up to 30 feet.
The city of Fall River with a population of 115,400 is an important manufacturing center. The principal products are cotton goods, rubber products, refractories, gas ranges, brass, bronze and silver products. The city is the tidewater terminus of a 9,000-barrel per day petroleum pipe line serving the Boston metropolitan and other districts petroleum products transported to Fall River in tankers.
The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors concludes that by replacing the lower 15,000 feet, that part in yellow as shown on the map would be replaced by the part in red of the existing channel by a new channel adjacent to the lower east shore, and by the provision of a turning basin above the bridges, commercial development of the lower harbor would be stimulated where substantial frontage is availa able.
Oil companies request access channels of the same depth, 35 feet, from the main channel to the natural deep water pools in the vicinity of their piers, or in lieu thereof a new 35-foot channel over the Fall River-Tiverton water front.
The Board concludes that by replacing the lower 15,000 feet of the existing channel by a new channel adjacent to the lower east shore and the provision of a turning basin above the bridges, commercial development of the lower harbor would be stimulated where substantial frontage is available.
Accordingly, the Board recommends modification of the existing project for Fall River Harbor, Mass., to provide (1) for abandonment of the existing 30-foot channel extending from deep water in Mount Hope Bay to the bend opposite Globe Wharf, a distance of approximately 15,000 feet; (2) a main channel 35 feet deep at mean low water, 400 feet wide adjacent to the water front, from deep water west of Common Fence Point through Mount Hope Bay and Fall River Harbor to the wharves above the bridges, with increased width at the bend on the approach below Slades Ferry Bridge, and a turning basin 35 feet deep, about 1,100 feet wide and 850 feet long, above the bridge between the Shell and Mountaup wharves.
The Chief of Engineers concurs in the views and recommendations of the Board.
The CHAIRMAN. Colonel, you have a straight channel there from Tiverton, do you not!
Colonel FERINGA. That is right, sir. If that was a through route, we probably would not recommend a change. However, here you are faced with a situation where a thriving port is handicapped because it cannot use all the frontage that is available.
They are crowded out of frontage here [indicating). They have natural deep water along here, and they want to bring the channel closer to the wharves which have been and are to be provided, in order to be able to develop this territory here.
It would lengthen the haul from the point where the two channels would intersect to this point, but the advantage of opening up this additional territory is manifest.
Mr. DONDERO. Would the yellow portion shown on the map be. discontinued ?
Colonel FERIXGA. It would be discontinued. That really is a better word than "abandoned," because it would mean no maintenance would be taken on this channel. Of course, the ships would make use of either one.
Mr. McDonough. That does exist, howerer! Colonel FERINGA. It does exist now. Mr. McDoxotgh. Is it navigable all the way through? Colonel FERINGA. It is navigable all the way through, and it is now 30 feet deep and 400 feet wide. But now they want a 35-foot channel to take care of the deep draft tankers. Rather than develop the existing channel, they also want the additional benefit of making this deep water accessible so that the port can be enlarged.
Mr. McDonough. What is the over-all cost?
Colonel FERINGA. The cost is $1,500,000 for new work. The annual cost of maintenance is $8,000. The interest and amortization on the project would be $59,000. That makes the total annual carrying charge $67,000.
A 35-foot channel along the route recommended would provide convenient access to the oil wharves in Tiverton and to the wharves in the lower harbor, and with the turning basin above the bridges, would provide the improvement necessary for the safe, efficient, and economical operation of postwar deeper draft vessels. Provision of the 35-foot channel would obviate the necessity for further Federal maintenance of the existing 30-foot project channel extending from deep water in Mount Hope Bay 15,000 feet to the bend opposite Globe Wharf.
The annual benefits are estimated at $142,700 of which $52,500 is the savings due to elimination of underloadings, $40,200 is elimination of delays due to tides, and $50,000 is the savings effected by the use of larger vessels.
The ratio of costs to benefits is 1.0 to 2.1.
BARNEGAT INLET, N. J.
(H. Doc. 358, 79th Congress)
Colonel FERINGA. The interim report on Barnegat Inlet is the one we are considering now. It was submitted in response to the resolution adopted by this committee on August 10, 1944. We are submitting an interim report, because there is a small part of the work which is immediately necessary, and we found that we could not furnish the entire report without additional studies which might go well over this. summer.
The entire report is due by about the 15th of November of this year, and although we got in touch with the division engineer and asked him whether he could expedite it, he stated that he could not do so without having a detrimental effect on the whole report.
I think what is desired by local interests is a connection between the inland waterway which is now authorized in the last river and
harbor act and will call for a project 12 feet deep and 100 feet wide, that waterway to be connected with the Atlantic Ocean. Our district engineer finds that it is a difficult problem to come to a correct solution. They are now taking drift measurements. They are getting in touch with the Erosion Board, in order to come to a satisfactory solution which will not upset the rather delicate balance which exists in that part of the country of the shore properties v. possible erosion.
But we can make in this interim report a definite recommendation as to this short channel which is marked in red on the map, and on which benefits of immediate importance should not be withheld pending the submission of this final report.
Mr. DONDERO. That is the one estimated at about $4,500?
Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir; the one I am going to talk about, for maintenance only; and the large report we can not expedite, although we have tried to do so.
Mr. DONDERO. Is this one of the projects that the committee examined some 3 or 4 years ago when we went over the coast of New Jersey ?
Colonel FERINGA. I was not along at that time.
Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. This larger report you refer to: Is that based on a hearing held by Colonel Renshaw about a year ago? Can you tell me that?
Colonel FERINGA. I imagine it is, Mr. Auchincloss, because this resolution on which this report and also the report you mentioned were based was authorized by this committee August 10, 1944, and it is always our purpose to assign those reports as quickly as possible to the district engineer. So I am of the opinion that this large report to which I refer is a result of that hearing.
Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. And as I understand it, that larger report would contemplate the changes of the jetties, et cetera, at the entrance to the inlet?
Colonel FERINGA. If it is found necessary.
Mr. AUCHINCLOSs. If it is found necessary; but that is what is being considered?
Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir.
Colonel FERINGA. The final report will be submitted or at least will get to the River and Harbor Board about November 15, but the item which I am about to describe need not be withheld for consideration pending the submission of the final report.
Barnegat Inlet is located on the coast of New Jersey 50 miles south of Sandy Hook and 32 miles north of Atlantic City. It lies between the barrier beaches, Island Beach on the north and Long Beach on the south, and connects Barnegat Bay with the Atlantic Ocean.
The improvement authorized by Congress and completed in 1940 provides for a channel through the inlet 8 feet deep increased to 10 feet through the outer bar, protected by convering stone jetties spaced 1,000 feet apart at their outer ends; and a channel of suitable hydraulic characteristic extending in a northwest direction from the