STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Sacramento, April 7, 1960. Hon. Louis C. RABAUT, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Civil Works, House of Repre sentatives, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN RABAUT: At the hearings last Tuesday, we were asked to rearrange the fiscal year 1961 priority listing of our California harbor projects presentation for shallow draft navigation, from priorities by U.S. Engineer districts to priorities by the entire State. These priorities are as listed below: Mr. PILLION. Mr. Chairman, I note that the statement recited that they were seeking funds for something like 35 small-craft harbor projects, is that right? Mr. DUNHAM. In various stages; yes, sir. Mr. PILLION. What would be the total cost of construction of the 35 projects, roughly? Just give us a very rough estimate. Mr. DUNHAM. Well, of course, you realize that about 13 of them are maintenance projects already completed and of the others there are 23 projects. I would say offhand that the total construction cost for those would probably be around $50 million which we are being authorized funds this year for practically what they can take care of. Mr. PILLION. I would like, without casting any reflection upon your mission here, to point out some of the practicalities of the situation and some of the practical facts of life. The State of New York has a coastline probably equal to that of California, which includes Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, the St. Lawrence River, Long Island, as well as other bodies of water, and the total funds for the State of New York in this budget for next year is $9 million. New York State pays something like 19 percent of all Federal taxes paid into the Treasury, and on a net basis it pays something like 14 percent of all taxes into the Federal Treasury. When you make a comparison with New York receiving $9 million and California receiving $62 million, that is quite a difference. Now, certainly, small-craft harbors for pleasure cannot be considered to be a "must" situation and I am wondering whether we ought to appropriate sums for small-craft harbors only because the State of California has had the foresight to establish, for instance, a smallcraft harbor agency to seek these funds. I think there ought to be some sort of uniformity and some fairness in the division of the funds for small-craft harbors and for other projects between the States and the various areas of the country. Just because California is so well represented here in Congress, it does not mean that we ought to throw all our sense of fairness out the window. There ought to be some degree of fairness in apportioning whatever funds we are able to give to this overall navigation situation. I recite that because of the tremendous difference and the tremendous differential in the sums received by California as compared to other States for projects that are not strictly economic and that are partially recreational for a function which we think is one that ought to be primarily that of the States rather than that of the Federal Government. If we are going along with these small-craft projects in the State of California, certainly we ought to do the same for the other States. I note that the State of New York has one very small project in the process of construction and here we have California with 35. There is a tremendous difference, and I think the committee ought to take that into account in this appropriation. Mr. RICHARDS. I do not know that I should mention it at this time, but would it be appropriate to mention that at this session of the legislature in California they approved in State funds $17 million to be put into these projects. Mr. PILLION. The State of California is very much on the ball, I would say that. Mr. DUNHAM. I might add————— Mr. PILLION. But, our responsibilities are just a little bit more different on a national scale rather than limited to one or two States. Mr. DUNHAM. To clear up one matter here, you will find that virtually all of these projects that we have are the ones where we are work ing with the Federal Government and at least one-half of the justification is from commercial interests and it is not all pleasure. Mr. RICHARDS. We have tried to tie them into the pleasure, but at least 50 are for commercial interests. Mr. RABAUT. Thank you for your very fine presentation. Mr. RICHARDS. Thank you very much. Mr. PILLION. I just wanted to express the other side of the coin, so to speak. Mr. RICHARDS. This is our first trip to Washington. Should we leave these other copies of the statement? Mr. RABAUT. Yes. TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 1960. SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEPWATER SHIP CHANNEL WITNESSES HON. JOHN E. MOSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA MELVIN SHORE, ENGINEER FOR THE SACRAMENTO-YOLO PORT DISTRICT Mr. RABAUT. We shall next hear from Congressman Moss of California and his group with respect to the Sacramento River deepwater ship channel. Mr. Moss, you may proceed. Mr. Moss. Mr. Chairman, Mr. William G. Stone, port director, was unable to make it for the first time in 11 years because of the illness of his wife. I have here with me Mr. Melvin Shore, the engineer of the Sacramento-Yolo Port District, and I ask that Mr. Shore be permitted to proceed for a few minutes. His statement is available to the members of the committee, and I would like to take a minute or two in summary and we will use very little of your time. Mr. SHORE. Mr. Chairman, with your approval, I would like to file for the record a prepared statement. Mr. RABAUT. Without objection, it will be placed into the record at this point. (The statement referred to follows:) SACRAMENTO RIVER DEEPWATER SHIP CHANNEL PROJECT We represent the Sacramento-Yolo Port District which is the local agency directly cooperating with the Federal Government in the construction of this project. REQUEST We are here today requesting appropriation of $11 million so that this project may be placed on a schedule for completion in June 1962. The budget estimate is $8 million. DESCRIPTION The project will, through the medium of deep sea transportation, open a tremendous tributary area embracing 24 California counties, north and east of Sacramento, 4 counties in southern Oregon, and 13 counties in northern Nevada, to worldwide markets. The physical works consist of a deepwater ship channel, harbor, and turning basin, and a shallow draft barge canal, with navigation lock, connecting the Sacramento River and harbor. STATUS REPORT Reference to the attached map (exhibit No. 1) will indicate the location of, and the various contracts involved in the project. These features are as follows: Appropriation of the additional $3 million, which the Corps of Engineers advises it can economically and advantageously apply during the next fiscal year, will permit the letting of contracts covering all remaining project features. It will allow the start of dredging in the reach of the deepwater channel from mile 0 to 14 (shown in purple on the attached map). Otherwise initiation of this work must be postponed until fiscal year 1962. With an additional $3 million for fiscal year 1961, $1.4 million would be applied to this portion of the project. A second important segment of the channel which would be expedited is that from mile 18 to 26.7 (shown in red on the attached map). Under present budget estimates $2,150,000 would be used to initiate this work. An additional $3 million appropriation this year would permit application of an additional $1.5 million to this feature. The allocation of these additional funds for fiscal year 1961 would make possible a schedule of construction that will yield a completed project in 1962, 1 year earlier than is possible under the budget estimate. Annexed to this statement as exhibit No. 2 is a schedule showing the proposed allocation of funds based on an appropriation of $11 million for fiscal year 1961 and a final amount of $8,250,000 in fiscal year 1962. LOCAL INTEREST COOPERATION By its agreement of assurance, given to the Secretary of the Army on December 24, 1947, the port district undertook the responsibilities assigned to local interest by the congressional act of authorization. In discharge of these responsibilities up to December 31, 1959, the district has expended a total of $4,255,636.62, the details of which are set forth in exhibit No. 3. Of this total, over $2.5 million has been expended for the acquisition of rights-of-way and relocation of utilities. At this time, all rights-of-way are in hand and utility relocations accomplished, or action to accomplish them has been commenced. The district has consistently had ample utility-free right-of-way available in advance of the needs of the Corps of Engineers, and no difficulties are foreseen to maintain this record. Local interest obligations are being met by a $3,750,000 bond issue approved by the voters of the district in 1947. Since the formation of the district that same year, in excess of $2 million in taxes have been collected from the local taxpayers. In addition, local private enterprise has expended in excess of $5 million for industrial developments adjacent to the terminal area. All of these investments were made in reliance upon prompt completion of the project. INVESTMENT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA The State of California early indicated its interest in this project by appropriating $750,000 as a contribution to partially cover the cost of property acquisition. These funds have all been expended. The State's division of highways has further cooperated by constructing, in 1956, at the main entrance to the port terminal area an overpass and interchange with U.S. Highway 40. This interchange will be an important asset to this entire project, in that it will facilitate easy access to the waterfront for truck traffic. At the present time the California State Division of Highways is reconstructing the Rio Vista Bridge across the deepwater channel to permit passage of deep sea vessels. The open span has been completed and is in use by shallow-draft vessels presently plying the waters of the Sacramento River. It is now ready to pass deep sea vessels when the channel is dredged to project depth. The entire contract is due for completion in August 1960 and will represent an expenditure in excess of $3 million. LOCAL INTEREST PLANS There will be left with your committee an aerial photograph of the harbor and terminal area. This photograph shows the status of the Corps of Engineers contract for dredging of the harbor as it stood on February 11, 1960. An overlay attached to the photograph shows an artist's conception of the area as it will look in 1962. Shown thereon are the facilities that the port district will place under contract for construction during 1961 to serve as the terminal area. Construction of these facilities has been delayed awaiting the placement of the spoil material from the harbor dredging. Completion of the harbor dredging is expected by June 1960, which, after allowing time for consolidation of the material, will permit construction of the terminal facilities to proceed. The facilities include a total of six quay-type wharves, two transit sheds, additional bulk grain handling facilities, bulk rice storage and handling facilities, barge facilities, and necessary streets, railroad tracks, and utilities to support them. To provide room for a deep sea vessel at the most northwesterly wharf, additional dredging is required, as shown on the overlay. The port district has already let a contract to accomplish this additional work. The construction of these facilities will involve the expenditure of approximately $10 million. Planning of the facilities is well underway and will make possible the contract-letting phase next year. These plans include modern facilities that will make for most expeditious handling of cargo. It is contemplated that the facilities will be completed and ready for use in June 1962. CONCLUSION An appropriation of $11 million is urgently requested to assure completion in June 1962, 1 year earlier than is possible under the budget estimate. This earlier completion date will not only be most economical for the Federal Government but will make possible the earlier use of the facilities already existing at the harbor and those proposed for immediate construction. |