Page images
PDF
EPUB

due when something ought to be done about them, even though the Budget Bureau for reasons unknown to me never makes a request for the necessary funds.

As I said before, by the expenditure of a relatively small amount of money the Congress could improve the economy of these fishing communities immeasurably. We have been subject to rapid storms in the North Pacific area, and it is just essential that they have small-boat basins in which to anchor and keep their fishing craft during the fishing season and during the off season. I do hope, Mr. Chairman, that the committee may see fit to make this relatively small amount of money available. If you desire I should be glad to leave with you a list of the projects.

Senator YOUNG. I wish you would. I would like to have that made a part of the record.

Delegate BARTLETT. I will be happy to do it now or submit it by letter later in the day.

Senator YOUNG. As you choose.

(The information referred to follows:)

Status of authorized rivers and harbors projects

Craig: Dredging...

Project

Elfin Cove: Deepening channel and entrance.
Gastineau Channel: Channel through bar..

Kodiak: Channel dredging....

Preliminary survey for small boat basin authorized by act of Mar. 2, 1945. Chief of Engineers' report dated Jan. 4, 1954, now making rounds for comment, recommends modification of existing project for boat basin at estimated cost of $1,685,000, plus $2,000 annual maintenance; construction authority required. The engineers determined that channel authorized earlier required no further improvement until small boat harbor authorized and funds for both jobs appropriated.

Metlakatla: Breakwater.

Meyers Chuck: Breakwater.

[blocks in formation]

Nome: Jetties, revetments, dredging of channel and basin, Aug. 9, 1917 63 percent complete.

Seawall completed.

Petersburg: Enlargement of boat basin..

Report on southeastern Alaska dated Dec. 28, 1953, now making rounds for comment, states 1945 authorized work should be done at same time further modification of basin is carried on. This report recommends modifica. tion of basin at estimated cost of $40,000, such modification requiring new construction authorization. Port Alexander: Deepening channel..

Committee resolution in 1949 requested review of reports of Port Alexander. Southeastern Alaska Report, dated Dec. 28, 1953, now making rounds for comment, states "completion of existing project and construction of breakwater not presently justified because local fish runs have diminished and town is nearly deserted." Seldovia: Channel..

Committee resolution of 1945 asked for resurvey. Cook Inlet Report, sent to Bureau of the Budget on Dec. 29, 1953, recommends small boat basin and breakwaters at estimated cost of $364,700, plus $1,400 annual maintenance. New construction authority needed. No mention made that channel project authorized in 1945 and small boat basin should be done at same time. Sitka: Small boat harbor and dredging.

Act of Mar. 2, 1945, also authorized for survey of Sitka Harbor, Alaska Rivers and Harbors Report submitted to Bureau of the Budget on Dec. 2, 1953, recommends modification of harbor to provide dredging of U. S. Forest Service basin at cost of $32,500, plus $500 annual maintenance, with work to be coordintaed with 1945 authorized project. Such coordination would require new construction authority.

Skagway small boat basin and dredging at wharf face..

Act of July 24, 1946, authorized reconstruction and extension of dike adjacent to city and reconstruction of dike at sanitorium. A report submitted in June 1946 recommended this as flood-control project and the act of July 24, 1946, so authorized. The preliminary survey had been authorized in act of Mar 2, 1945, originally as possible rivers and harbors project. Engineers recommend this flood-control project and boat basin be done at same time.

Wrangell Harbor:

390,000

113,000

Aug. 30, 1935

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Breakwater completed.

Sept. 22, 1922

[blocks in formation]

1 For Nome seawall and Wrangell Narrows.

*Including $90,000 estimated for Port Alexander project now recommended to be abandoned.

Delegate BARTLETT. Thank you very much.

Senator YOUNG. Is there a budget estimate for any of these?
General CHORPENING. No, sir.

Senator YOUNG. Which are the nearest ready to go?

Delegate BARTLETT. I think they are all ready to go, that is to say the engineers have made up-to-date estimates as to the cost of these several projects, and any of them, as I understand, could be launched without any delay.

Senator YOUNG. I would like to have General Chorpening comment on that.

DREDGING WORK

General CHORPENING. The work on these projects, Mr. Chairman, is basically dredging, so we do not require planning funds to go ahead with these as we do on most of our projects. Within a few months, if construction funds were made available, we could go ahead and advertise, using our standard dredging specifications. All that would be essential would be to get an up-to-date condition survey so that we know the depths and determine the amounts of material to be moved. Senator YOUNG. Would you put in the record, General the benefitcost ratio on each one?

General CHORPENING. Yes, sir.

Senator YOUNG. Also what state of planning they are in, whether they are all ready to go or not?

General CHORPENING. We can indicate that on each one, sir, as to what would be required and the present benefit-cost ratio as we see it. (The information referred to follows:)

BENEFIT-COST RATIOS AND PLANNING REQUIRED TO INITIATE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN ALASKAN PROJECTS

The benefit-cost ratios for the Alaskan projects listed are given on page 495 of the hearings. The planning required to initiate construction is as follows:

[blocks in formation]

This project has significant value to national defense in addition to its monetary benefits.

Benefits based on safety to navigation with possibility of the saving of lives, therefore no evaluation has been made.

Delegate BARTLETT. Without picking out any one of these projects for a preferential statement from me here now, I would like to say that, for example, there is a little community called Metlakatla about 16 miles from Ketchikan, and the population there is altogether Indian, about 800 or 900 people, and they all live by fishing. They have substantially no protection for their craft at all.

ESTIMATED COST

The engineers have calculated the cost of this project at $390,000 as of June 30, 1952. The project was authorized way back in 1945. I could name many others in the same category, Sitka, Petersburg, and so forth, that are very desperate, and I could not be too emphatic in that declaration.

Senator YOUNG. Does that complete your presentation?

Delegate BARTLETT. Yes, sir.

Senator YOUNG. The committee has received a letter from the city. manager of Kodiak, Alaska, urging appropriations for the authorized Alaskan projects. That letter will be placed in the record at this point.

(The letter referred to follows:)

Hon. WILLIAM F. KNOWLAND,

KODIAK, ALASKA, February 11, 195.

Chairman, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Army Civil Functions,
Senate Office Building, Washington 25, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR KNOWLAND: I am enclosing a list of Corps of Engineer Alaskan river and harbor projects for which authorization acts have been passed by the Congress. Appropriations for these projects have not been made to date.

The mayor and city council have instructed me to bring this matter to your attention and to urge you to support an appropriation for these projects.

The city of Kodiak, and many other Alaskan cities, officials, and organizations, feel that these projects would materially contribute to the growth of Alaska and the development of the many resources of the Territory. The development of minerals, timber, and fisheries depend to a great extent on an adequate waterborne transportation system and facilities. The importance of an adequate system of harbors to the national defense should not be overlooked.

The construction of these projects would be of great benefit to Alaskan fisheries, in lowered operating and maintenance expense, at a time when this industry has had tremendous economic reversals due to depleted salmon runs. This important industry faces a tough economic road for several years to come.

Appropriation of funds for the construction of these projects would be in keeping with announced policy of assisting in the development of Alaskan

resources.

Your subcommittee will be considering appropriations for river and harbor projects in the near future. Accordingly, your endorsement and active support for an appropriation for these projects this year is solicited.

Very truly yours,

ROBERT E. SHARP, City Manager.

Senator YOUNG. The committee has a letter from Commodore J. Wayne Johnson urging appropriations for the dredging of Mendenhall Bar in the vicinity of Juneau. That letter will be placed in the record at this point.

42592-54- -66

(The letter referred to follows:)

Hon. WILLIAM F. KNOWLAND,

THE JUNEAU YACHT CLUB, Juneau, Alaska, February 11, 1954.

Chairman, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee,

Senate Office Building, Washington 25, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR KNOWLAND: Congress has approved a number of small boat harbor and dredging projects in Alaska that are badly needed. These projects were approved and the need for them was shown some years ago. As this need is growing yearly we feel that consideration should be given to them and money appropriated this year so that at least some of these projects can be started now.

If you will go back over the record of appropriations of this type for Alaska you will find that we have had practically none for many years. Boat harbors in the larger towns in Alaska are extremely overtaxed and nonexistent in many of the smaller towns.

Approximately 80 percent of the total income in Alaska is afforded by the fishing industry and it is very important to the development of Alaska that facilities for this industry and the many who work in it are available for the protection of boats and equipment.

One project we are well acquainted with here is the dredging of the Mendenhall Bar in the Juneau area. This dredging would cost $1,000,000 or less to complete and would amortize itself in not more than 12 years in savings to both commercial and pleasure-boat owners in this area.

This project was approved by Congress in 1945 and we urgently request that you consider it along with the other highly important projects which have already been approved.

We feel it is extremely important to the United States as a whole and to Alaska in particular that facilities will be forthcoming which will assist us in bringing manufacturing and industrial investments in Alaska so that its economy can grow and support the statehood, which it will be entitled to, in the near future. Sincerely yours,

J. WAYNE JOHNSON, Commodore, Juneau Yacht Club.

Senator YOUNG. The committee also has a letter from Mr. Reuel M. Fleming urging an appropriation for Mendenhall Bar.

The committee has received letters from Mr. Thomas K. Sennett, Mr. and Mrs. Frank D. Montgomery, Mr. Tom White, Miss Inez King, Mr. Charles A. King and Mr. Rubye Rottluff, all urging the appropriation of funds for the improvement of Sitka Harbor. I will place one of these letters in the record and the others will be available to the committee.

(The letter referred to follows:)

Hon. WILLIAM F. KNOWLAND,

Chairman, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee,

FEBRUARY 10, 1954.

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: It has been brought to my attention that there is a meeting of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors scheduled for the 15th of February, or shortly thereafter.

Are you fully aware of the economic importance of a small-boat harbor to the city of Sitka? Let me point out a few of the many pertinent facts of why Sitka, above any other city on the west coast today needs, yes, must have, a boat harbor. Fishing, in all its ramifications, is the only industry that the city of Sitka now has to depend on for its economic welfare. Last year the fish landed and proeessed in Sitka amounted to approximately $5 million and it should have been, and could have been, two or three times that figure if there was some place for the fishing fleet to tie up other than at the wholly inadequate city float that is situated at the edge of the steamer channel.

About 3 weeks ago, we had a storm that took out half of our floats in our present so-called harbor and, but for the grace of God, could have completely demolished the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of boats tied to these floats. The only harbor we have is exposed to every wind or storm and is so hazardous that the insurance companies have refused to insure the Sitka fleet.

« PreviousContinue »