Colonel MOORE. No, sir; I have no indication that they would. Mr. POTTER. I believe the Coast Guard has reported to the engineers asking for this project.

Colonel MOORE. They appeared at the public hearing held by the district engineer and made a strong case for the improvement that has been recommended.

Senator HOLLAND. What was their position with reference to the necessity of keeping this particular vessel, this particular draft, at that place?

Colonel MOORE. The ship can operate in the existing depth but with considerable difficulty and loss of efficiency. They can operate with a draft as little as 17% feet, but that necessitates reduced fuel supply which increases their cost of operation.

In addition, in order to break ice they have to carry water ballast to give the required draft, and if they work with a reduced ballast load their ice-breaking operations are inefficient.

Senator HOLLAND. Was the testimony of the Coast Guard witnesses at your hearing reduced to writing?

Colonel MOORE. Yes, sir.

Senator HOLLAND. It seems to me it might be wise to examine that testimony with a view to incorporating some of it here, perhaps. And I wish you would report later in the hearing to the subcommittee as to the availability of some of that testimony just as given.

(The information is as follows:)

At the hearing held by the district engineer at Cheboygan on May 8, 1946, the commanding officer of the Mackinaw submitted a statement relative to the need for the improvement. I am inserting in the record a portion of his statement. "As far as can be determined at this time, the present traffic and expected traffic of the number of passages of the Mackinaw to and from its present berth at Cheboygan, Mich., would average at least one such passage per week. Inasmuch as the primary duties of the Coast Guard are for the saving of life and property at sea, it is difficult to determine or even anticipate the actual future operations of the Mackinaw; this vessel is continuously on a stand-by status to answer any call for assistance where life and/or property are in danger. The diversified responsibilities of the Coast Guard are of a nature that, due to any emergency, the Mackinaw will proceed to sea with a few minutes notice, at any time, day or night. Furthermore, it is of paramount importance, that the harbor facilities be such that this cutter can proceed to answer a distress call with no possible delay. When forced to moor to its berth bow in, by reason of adverse wind conditions, weather has been experienced which would make any attempt to leave Cheboygan Harbor so hazardous that there is little question that the Mackinaw would have been blown aground onto the lee shore when turning or backing out of the harbor. It is under just such circumstances that we, the Coast Guard personnel aboard the Mackinaw, anticipate calls for assistance. The fact that this vessel is equipped with a bow propeller precludes the possibility of springing or winding the ship as is done by commercial vessels when in this port.

"The above recommendations are based upon the professional observations of the officer personnel attached to the Mackinaw for the past 17 months or portion thereof.

"Cheboygan, Mich., is designated as the home port of the United States Coast Guard cutter Mackinaw, and has operated from that port since December 30, 1944."

I am also submitting for the record a copy of a letter dated August 28, 1946, from the commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,
Cleveland 13, Ohio, August 28, 1946.

To: District engineer, Detroit district, Corps of Engineers, P. O. Box, 2859, Detroit 31, Mich.

Subject: Report on Cheboygan Harbor and River, Mich.

1. Reference is made to your letter of 21 August, 1946, file GLEGW subject Review Report on Cheboygan Harbor and River, Mich.

2. This office is generally in agreement with the comments of Commander Stober and Lieutenant Hopkins. While it is true that there have been no instances of accidents to the Mackinaw while operating in Cheboygan Harbor, the vessel has operated there under hazardous conditions on many occasions when there would have been little or no danger with the improvements requested. The present depth of the water seriously affects the maneuverability of the vessel and combined with the narrowness of the channel presents difficulties which may lead to stranding under adverse weather conditions at some future time. The vessel must at present be run at low speeds because of the shoal channel and there is little room for the application of adequate angles to the course to correct for leeway at such speeds. This is particularly true during strong northwest winds, when there is a decided set outside the mouth of the river. Further, deepening of the channel only would not cure the condition since the effect of suction along the banks has caused sharp, uncontrolled changes in heading on several occasions. 3. Present project depths are insufficient for the Mackinaw both in the channel and turning basin and continued operation has been possible only because the stage of water has been well above the plane of reference since the stationing of the vessel at Cheboygan. The location is a most strategic one in which to base a ship of this type and her continuance at Cheboygan is desirable. However, it may develop in the future that a change is necessary if operations are unduly hampered by low water and generally inadequate harbor conditions.

J. A. HIRSHFIELD,

Commodore, United States Coast Guard,
Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.

Senator HOLLAND. Is there further testimony?

Mr. POTTER. Could I make one short observation?
Senator HOLLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. POTTER. The Coast Guard cutter Mackinaw is the only ice breaker of that type on the Great Lakes. It is one of the largest ice breakers we have. The bottleneck, as far as lake traffic is concerned, is in the strait section. That was the reason that the ice breaker was constructed. And, of course, it is necessary that it be in that vicinity in order to make it available to take care of breaking the ice in the strait. And I think you will find the statement made by the Coast Guard to the engineers that that is the only harbor that is adequate for them in that vicinity.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you, sir. A statement on this project by Senator Ferguson, will be included in the record at this point.

UNITED STATES SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
July 14, 1949.

Hon. DENNIS CHAVEZ,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works,

United States Senate.

DEAR SENATOR CHAVEZ: I regret exceedingly that due to other committee work it was not possible for me to appear before your subcommittee considering the general flood control and river and harbor bill, on behalf of the Cheboygan (Mich.) Harbor and River project. I hope that this letter may be incorporated in the record of hearings on the bill in lieu of a personal statement.

From personal knowledge of the commercial and Coast Guard requirements I can endorse the recommendations of the Corps of Engineers for deepening the Cheboygan River Channel and for deepening and enlarging the presently inadequate turning basin in Cheboygan Harbor.

Commercial requirements of the Cheboygan area include transport on vessels of such size that present channel drafts and turning facilities present real hazards to their operation. Cheboygan also is the home port of the Coast Guard cutter stationed to protect the flow of commerce through the Straits of Mackinaw, and it has experienced navigational hazards due to the present limitations of the Cheboygan channel and harbor.

It is unfortunate that this project was not submitted to the Congress in time to permit its inclusion in the rivers and harbors bill as reported in the House. However, necessary preliminary requirements have been met in that the project

has been recommended by the Corps of Engineers and has been approved by the Bureau of the Budget.

I respectfully urge that your committee give its approval to this project for inclusion in the pending bill so that the necessary navigation improvements may proceed at the earliest possible date.

Yours sincerely,

HOMER FERGUSON.

Senator HOLLAND. Any further testimony on this Cheboygan Harbor?

If not, we will take up the Bradford, Pa., project.

BRADFORD, PA.

Mr. Kenneth Meyer will be our first witness.

Mr. Meyer, we understand that this project is already in the House bill so I trust you will make your remarks brief, sir.

Mr. MEYER. We only have three witnesses, Mr. Chairman, and they are all very brief.

Senator HOLLAND. All right, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF KENNETH MEYER, CHAIRMAN,

BRADFORD

DISTRICT FLOOD CONTROL AUTHORITY, BRADFORD, PA.

Mr. MEYER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Kenneth Meyer. I appear here as chairman of the Bradford District Flood Control Authority which is a body incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the purpose of flood control, representing one city, one county, one borough, and three townships located in the Tunungwant drainage area.

We appeared before the Subcommittee on Public Works in the House and submitted all of the vital data pertaining to the Bradford and vicinity project for the record, and our project is included in House omnibus bill H. R. 5472.

I am here today to express the appreciation of our community for the courtesy extended to us and to sincerely urge that your committee concur with the House in approving our project.

That concludes my statement, and thank you very much.

I would like to introduce Mr. Martin C. McIntyre, who has a brief statement.

Senator HOLLAND. We will be glad to hear from him.

STATEMENT OF MARTIN C. MCINTYRE, REPRESENTING THE SOUTHERN LAKE ERIE ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR CENTRAL LABOR UNIONS, BRADFORD, PA.

Mr. MCINTYRE. Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, my name is Martin C. McIntyre and I represent the members of the American Federation of Labor from our district.

I will make only a short statement as I had the pleasure of appearing before the House Subcommittee on Public Works and making a full statement which is in the record. However, the members of my organization urged me to return to Washington to appear before your committee to further emphasize the need for adequate protection for Bradford and vicinity.

I do not wish to take up a lot of your time stressing the benefits to derived by our people from this project as I am sure that you are fully aware of the tremendous losses inflicted on the laboring people of any community in time of flood. Our citizens live in dread and fear of additional suffering and financial loss similar to what has been endured the past years and are looking to their Government for adequate relief.

I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you.

Thank you, gentlemen.

I would like to introduce Hugh J. Ryan, the mayor of the city of Bradford.

Senator HOLLAND. We will be glad to hear from the mayor.

STATEMENT OF HUGH J. RYAN, MAYOR, CITY OF BRADFORD, PA.

Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Hugh J. Ryan. I appear here today as mayor of the city of Bradford requesting your approval of the Bradford and vicinity flood control project.

I realize that you have many projects to consider, therefore, I will be brief.

I appeared before the House Subcommittee on Public Works with others from our community, where we presented testimony setting forth great need and justification for this project and I do not wish to take up your valuable time by duplicating that here.

I do have with me, however, a statement which I would like to submit for the record, by Mr. John E. Selden, president of the Bradford District Pennsylvania Oil Producers Association, stressing the future of the oil industry in our area and its value to the community. Senator HOLLAND. All right, Mr. Ryan, it will be inserted in the record.

(The statement above referred to is as follows:)

BRADFORD DISTRICT PENNSYLVANIA OIL PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION,
Bradford, Pa., July 11, 1949.

STATEMENT BY JOHN E. SELDEN, PRESIDENT, BRADFORD DISTRICT PENNSYL
VANIA OIL PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION, TO THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC Works,
UNITED STATES SENATE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

THE BRADFORD AND VICINITY, PENNSYLVANIA, FLOOD-CONTROL PROJECT Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is John E. Selden, of Bradford, Pa. I am president of the Bradford District Pennsylvania Oil Producers Association.

Our association represents approximately 350 independent producers in the Bradford field, from which is today being produced approximately one half of the high grade Pennsylvania crude oil. The Bradford field, a large portion of which lies in the Tunungwant area, has been producing for almost 80 years, having been discovered within a few years after the Drake well, the first oil well in the world, was drilled. There has been produced over 415,000,000 barrels from the Bradford field during this period. The known reserves, as estimated by reliable geologists and engineers on present known methods of recovery, are 194,000,000 barrels, which, at the present market value of $3.40, represents $659,600,000. The life of the field is estimated to be at least 40 years on the present known secondary recovery methods, but additional scientific research is expected to result in at least 700,000,000 barrels being recovered.

Although production, refining and marketing of Pennsylvania crude oil plays a major role in the economy of the Bradford area, it is by no means the sole industrial activity of the area, as there are a considerable number of diversified industries in the community in addition to the oil industry.

It should be pointed out that the Bradford field is the closest to the eastern seaboard and in time of war its proximity to industrial centers would be of great value.

The members of the association, which I represent, would like to see the success of the Bradford flood-control project for the reason that the economy of the region requires the elimination of the floods which, in the last years, have wrought havoc. Thank you very kindly for the opportunity to appear before you to urge your consideration of this very worth-while project.

JOHN E. SELDEN. Senator HOLLAND. Senator Martin, did you wish to be heard on this project?

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARTIN, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Senator MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reiterate the statement that I made before the House committee relative to this project.

In 1947, the damage to property in this area was almost $2,000,000. This area is in the Bradford oil field. The Bradford oil is the finest grade of crude in the entire world. There is danger of these wells even being totally lost by reason of these floods.

In addition to that, this area makes equipment for the production of oil which is very important to the industry.

I would like the opportunity of placing in the record here a statement that I made before the House committee in that regard.

Senator HOLLAND. Without objection, it will be included.

The only thing that seems to me at all subject to question in the matter is the small ratio of benefits stated by the Engineers to be here only 1.02 to 1. Except for that it seems to me there should be no question about the justification of the project.

Senator SPARKMAN. May I ask a question? Is that ratio of benefits figured on the cost to the Federal Government or the over-all cost including the local contributions?

Colonel GEE. It is figured on the total cost, local and Federal. Senator SPARKMAN. So if it were figured on only Federal cost it would be a higher ratio, would it not?

Colonel GEE. Yes, sir; very definitely.

Senator HOLLAND. As I understand it, you strike this average annual benefit by calculating the flood damage over a period of years and then dividing it between those years equally?

Colonel GEE. Yes, sir; the number of years of record. And a single large flood like the 1947 flood at Bradford, with a direct damage estimated at $1,729,000 brings the annual average very high as compared with the average annual prior to the 1947 flood.

One of the unusual things about the floods in Bradford is the fact that the city contains a number of tank farms where all grades of petroleum products are stored. The flood waters displace the oil or gasoline from these tanks and the flood then carrying this petroleum on the surface of the water is a very severe fire hazard for the local community, and there have been combined flood and fire experiences there which have been very devastating.

Senator HOLLAND. Do you have anything else, Senator Martin? Senator MARTIN. No; except my statement on the Bradford project, and also a short statement on the Lackawaxen River Basin project.