« PreviousContinue »
Senator KNOWLAND. That is a very productive agricultural region, is it not?
Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir. However, there is now a deep-water channel along the San Joaquin River to Stockton, and we have had no trouble with salt-water intrusion there. I hope the proponents may have something to say about this. It was shown to the Board and also to the Rivers and Harbors Committee of the House that the opponents of the project are afraid of salt-water intrusion. They are located along the San Joaquin River, which is trade territory of Stockton and not along the proposed channel route. However, we do recognize the possibility of salt-water intrusion and we are prepared to cope with it should it actually arise.
The cost of the required local cooperation is $3.140,000, and the Board has been assured that the local cooperation will be immediately forthcoming.
The estimated evaluated annual benefits resulting from the navigation features of the improvement total $795,000, compared to annual cost of $706,000 for these features. This indicates economic justification for the work by a favorable ratio of costs to tangible benefits of 1.0 to 1.13. By adding to the annual cost the maximum cost of salinity prevention works, a maximum estimated first cost of $2,000,000, the cost-benefit ratio drops to 1.0 as to 1.04.
Taking the potentialities of the area into account as well as its current activities, the Board is of the opinion that the provision of a deep-draft channel will return benefits in excess of its costs.
Mr. Chairman, in brief, what is proposed is this: The location I am now pointing to is the Pacific Ocean. Then there is San Francisco Bay, the San Pablo Bay, and Suisun Bay. We now have a deep-water channel from Suisun Bay to Stockton. That channel has carried a tonnage in excess of the amount we estimated would be carried in recommending the Stockton Channel to Congress. So it has paid out. Sacramento is the capital of California. It is a rich area. It has a tremendous trading zone surrounding it. Local interests feel it needs the benefits of deep-water transportation. The Army engineers made an examination in accordance with the requirements of Congress, and we feel the project is economically justified.
The opposition to the project has been-well, there has been opposition, but it has come from the city of Stockton, and I understand that the opponents will be here and will speak for themselves.
Mr. Chairman, I think I have explained the matter. Senator OVERTON. What is the present depth of the Sacramento Channel?
Colonel FERINGA. It is a tortuous channel on the old river, with depth of 10 feet.
Senator OVERTON. Is it now being utilized ?
Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir; in a considerable amount. I gave the tonnage figures a few minutes ago.
Senator OVERTON. That tonnage is entirely by barge?
Senator OVERTON. If this new project is constructed there will be steamer transportation up to Lake Washington ?
Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir; it would be deep-water transportation.
Senator OVERTON. Why do you say a depth of 30 feet, because some of these big boats require a depth of 35 feet or more, is not that so?
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 ?
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.)
RIVERS AND HARBORS
THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 1946
UNITED STATES SENATE,
Washington, D.C. 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 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 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?