Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir; but you will also recall that we usually go into that deeper draft step by step, since it would be more costly. We feel that 30 feet is justified now, and perhaps in 50 years a deeper draft would be warranted. Senator KNOWLAND. What is it up at San Joaquin? Colonel FERINGA. It is a 30-foot channel. Senator OVERTON. Then there is no necessity for taking care of deeper-draft vessels, is there? Colonel FERINGA. I would have to say there is no necessity for it. Senator OVERTON. If you construct it at 30-foot depth now, and later should find this area warrants its being enlarged to 35 feet, would it cost more than if you proceeded to build at 35 feet now? Colonel FERINGA. It would cost somewhat more because you would have to again mobilize your plant. Senator OVERTON. Could you give us an estimate of how much the additional cost of 5 feet would be if constructed later rather than being constructed now? Colonel FERINGA. It would be hard to say. I would suggest in the neighborhood of 1 percent. Senator OVERTON. Only 1 percent? Colonel FERINGA. As I understood your question, Mr. Chairman, it is the cost in addition Senator OVERTON. Let us say it would cost now $5,000,000 over and above the estimated cost if the channel were 35 feet instead of 30 feet. Then if 5 years from now the channel were deepened from 30 feet to 35 feet, what will that additional 5 feet cost? I mean, how much more than the $5,000,000 assuming it would be $5,000,000? Colonel FERINGA. I would guess roughly that 1 percent would be the increased cost of mobilizing the plant on that job and demobilizing it. Senator OVERTON. Do you mean 1 percent of $5,000,000? Colonel FERINGA. It is hard to tell. It would be the cost of mobilization and of demobilization only. Senator OVERTON. Then it would be only $50,000? Colonel FERINGA. It may be more than that. To get the plant on the job and to take it off again would cost more but not much more. It would be the extra cost of mobilizing and demobilizing the plant. Senator OVERTON. And that is all of the extra cost? Colonel FERINGA. That is all, sir. As I get your question, suppose it takes $5,000,000 extra to increase the depth of the channel from 30 feet to 35 feet now. What would it cost to provide that extra increment at some subsequent time? You are not taking into account any price increases? Senator OVERTON. NO. Colonel FERINGA. It would be only the extra cost of mobilizing the plant for the job and then demobilizing it. I guess it would be $100,000. Senator OVERTON. All right; does that complete your statement? Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir. Senator OVERTON. Why stop the channel a mile and a half from Sacramento and then go by barge channel into Sacramento? Colonel FERINGA. There is now a natural body of water at Lake Washington, and that is an ideal place for building a terminal. Therefore it would be a good location. If, for instance, we found it cheaper, which we do not, to develop the Sacramento River in its more or less circuitous route, then we would probably build a deep water channel from the river into Lake Washington and still develop Lake Washington as a harbor. I think the local people can go into that further. We have looked into the question whether it would be cheaper to follow the Sacramento River or make this new cut, and in dollars and cents the latter is the cheapest. (Thereupon Colonel Feringa withdrew from the committee table.) Senator OVERTON. Who represents the opposition? STATEMENT OF WARREN H. ATHERTON, STOCKTON, CALIF. Mr. ATHERTON. Mr. Chairman, I am appearing in opposition to this project for the County of San Joaquin, the city of Stockton, the Stockton Port District, the Stockton Chamber of Commerce, and some reclamation districts along the lower San Joaquin Delta. I will be the only witness appearing for all of these bodies and in opposition to this project. I would like to have the privilege of making a statement in opposition, which will take about 40 minutes. Does the chairman care to have me proceed at this hour, or would he care to hear me in the morning? Senator OVERTON. Will you be the only witness in opposition to this project? Mr. ATHERTON. I will be the only witness in opposition. With your consent I would like to take about 40 minutes to present our case. Senator OVERTON. If there will be other witnesses in opposition I will have to limit you. Mr. ATHERTON. There will be no other witness in opposition. Senator OVERTON. I think we could get through in 30 minutes, could we not? Mr. ATHERTON. I will try, sir. Senator OVERTON. If we go over until tomorrow this would be a hang-over. We are supposed to start another project tomorrow, the Tennessee-Tombigbee project. I believe we will let you intrude on our time tomorrow morning, and we hope you will get through in 30 minutes. The committee will be in recess now until 10:30 o'clock tomorrow morning. Senator KNOWLAND. Mr. Chairman, this will be the first business tomorrow morning? Senator OVERTON. Yes; this will be the first order of business tomorrow morning. The committee will now stand in recess until 10: 30 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Thereupon at 5:35 p. m. Wednesday, June 12, 1946, the committee recessed until 10:30 the following morning.) S8555-46- --22 RIVERS AND HARBORS THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 1946 UNITED STATES SENATE, The committee met at 10:30 a. m., pursuant to adjournment on yesterday, Senator John H. Overton, presiding. Present: Senators Overton (presiding), Bilbo, McClellan, Robertson, Cordon, Brooks, and Knowland. Present also: Senator Thomas of Oklahoma. Senator OVERTON. The committee will come to order. Now, Senator, did you say the Governor of California is here? Senator KNOWLAND. No; Congressman Johnson is here on the Sacramento Valley project. He has to get back to the House and wanted to make a statement. Senator OVERTON. Does he represent the proponents or opponents? Senator KNOWLAND. He represents the proponents. Senator OVERTON. This project is in the rivers and harbors bill? Senator KNOWLAND. Yes. Senator OVERTON. The opponents should be heard first, but we will give deference to the Congressman. Representative JOHNSON. I am willing to wait if it is necessary. Senator OVERTON. No, no; we make way for Governors and Congressmen. The Congressman's testimony will appear in the record along with the proponents when we hear them. STATEMENT OF HON. J. LEROY JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS REPRESENTING THE THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Representative JOHNSON. My name is Leroy Johnson and I represent the Third District of California. In my district is the city of Sacramento, which is the terminus of the proposed project that you have under consideration. Also in my district, my home town, is the city of Stockton, which is objecting to this project. I first want to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you. In order that you can understand the matter a little better I brought with me a sketch of the Department of the Interior showing the contours in the mountains of California and indicating the general route of the project from Sacramento down to the Delta. Senator OVERTON. I wonder if you can hold it up so all the members of the committee can see that. Representative JOHNSON. This shows the city of Stockton which now has a port which was completed late in 1933. Senator OVERTON. Stockton has a port and does not want Sacramento to have a port? Representative JOHNSON. That is what I understand, some of the people don't want it, but I think most of them don't have any objection to the Sacramento port. Senator ROBERTSON. This is a project to open up a canal from the bay up to Sacramento? Representative JOHNSON. Yes, sir; on the map you will see the red line that the Colonel pointed to as being the proposed route of the Sacramento project and on the other red line, on a horizontal line, is the present channel to the city of Stockton, a 32-foot channel. I might say, Mr. Chairman, all during the hearings on this project by the district engineer, the division engineer and the Army engineers, no one from Stockton appeared and objected to the project. I appeared at the Board of Army Engineers hearing and there was no one from my home city there to object to it then. Now, the Stockton project was based on a report made in 1922 by Gen. U. S. Grant 3d, and later on when we got the bill through the Congress and got appropriations, the project was finally built and completed late in 1933. I think the fallacy of the argument that Stockton submits in opposition to this project is based on this, Mr. Chairman: In the report of the Sixty-eighth Congress on which the Stockton project was based, in indicating the area that would be served by the Stockton port, it included all this interior valley here, a tremendously long and rich valley, and up into lower Oregon and over across Nevada as far as Salt Lake, as being the area that the Stockton port could serve. Senator OVERTON. Whose report was that? Representative JOHNSON. General Grant. Stockton is claiming that they have a monopoly on that area and all the port facilities that that area is entitled to have for all future time is the city of Stockton. That report was made almost a quarter of a century ago. Since that time the area has greatly increased in population. Much new land has been taken in. Many industries have come there, and it has increased vastly in wealth. When the Sacramento people talked to me about this project I told them if they got the approval of the Army engineers I would be glad to help them get the project. In making their studies, as you know, Mr. Chairman, and the other members know, the Army engineers have two prime things that they consider. One is the physical aspects of the project, the engineering features, and the other is the economic aspect of it, whether or not the savings to shippers will justify the expenditure. Naturally in making that study, which they did in this case like they do in all cases, they did consider what if any effect a deep waterway to Sacramento would have on the present deep waterway to the city of Stockton, and they concluded it would not be damaging, would not be unfair, and that the Sacramento project was justified. Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, I spent about 10 years of my life helping develop this Stockton project, wrote all the proceedings, ordinances, laws, bonds, and all those things; helped to acquire the rightsof-way. I wouldn't do one thing that I thought would seriously interfere with or damage the Stockton project. But I do not consider fair competition as being injurious. That is all we have here. The Sacramento project has been found feasible |