Despite the fact that deepwater facilities are not yet available at S mento, private capital has shown its interest by constructing industrial p adjacent to the terminal area. Among them are the Haslett warehouse ($ 000); the Farmers Rice Growers Cooperative elevator and mill ($2,500,000) Rio Bonito warehouse ($200,000); and miscellaneous smaller industrial p ($350,000). Several of these are designed for conveyor-belt connection oceangoing vessels in the harbor terminal.

Port officials estimate that an additional expenditure of approximately million will be made by the port district during the last year of constru of the project.

CONCLUSION

In the interests (1) of an economical and efficient construction sche and (2) of an early realization of this worthwhile project, I urgently re mend an appropriation of $11 million for fiscal year 1961.

Mr. PILLION. Mr. Chairman, without reference to this partic project, I would like to point out that the whole State of New Y with all its ports has in this budget a total of $9 million and this project has about $8 million. Of course, you know the State of ! York does pay a tremendous amount of Federal tax.

Mr. Moss. I recognize the persuasiveness of the gentleman's a ment, but I would point out this, if I may

Mr. PILLION. Without any reflection upon this particular proj I want to point out from the standpoint of impartiality the unf ness in the distribution of funds.

Mr. Moss. I would point out that we are a very large State wh in a period of less than 75 years experienced a growth which has ta your State probably 200 years to achieve, and it has to meet tren dous problems.

Mr. PILLION. We have problems and we have a coastline and c merce also in the State of New York.

Mr. Moss. I recognize that.

Mr. PILLION. And yet there is a tremendous differential.
Mr. Moss. There is.

Mr. PILLION. Thank you.

Mr. RABAUT. Concluding, this is a $43 million project.

Mr. Moss. Yes, sir.

Mr. RABAUT. What is the local contribution? Is that figure million?

Mr. Moss. That was the original requirement as it was comput but I point out that is now stepped up to over $13 million. Mr. RABAUT. Is not this $13 million in warehouses and items of t sort?

Mr. Moss. No, sir. A large part of this money has been pended for the acquisition of property which has been and will turned over to the Corps of Engineers for construction of the vari features of the project. The port district has and will, also, expe sizable sums of money to relocate powerlines, telephone lines, a well, railroad and highway facilities, all to clear the way for co struction by the corps. All of this was done in keeping with t agreement between the post district and the Corps of Engineers dictated by Congress in its act of authorization. Additional sums money will be spent for wharves and transit sheds which will or perform a service to the users of the project, in manner similar to th of the ship channel itself.

Mr. RABAUT. How much of that goes toward this dredging and the removal of dirt and other things which actually constitute the project? Without that, the buildings are not worth much.

Mr. Moss. Mr. Chairman, may I very briefly summarize the requirements which were part of this agreement with my people? I did not get the authorization. Congressman Johnson got the authorization for this project, and there was an agreement entered into and we have lived up to our agreement. That agreement requires that we furnish without cost to the United States all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and spoil disposal areas for the initial work and subsequent maintenance when and as required and make all essential utility changes necessary for the construction of the project.

Mr. RABAUT. That is the regular language which is used in all of these projects.

Mr. Moss. We have complied and we have had great increases. We Lad to take all the money we had planned to use on the total facilities to acquire the lands, the easements, and to relocate utilities.

Mr. RABAUT. What bothers us on this very project is the activity of the engineers.

Mr. Moss. Of course, I am not responsible for that.

Mr. RABAUT. We do not know who put the pressure on them, but whoever put the pressure on them is as guilty as they are. It does not make this project sit well with the committee for that reason.

Mr. Moss. I assure the chairman that I was not responsible for cing any pressure on the engineers. I think, perhaps, the contract ofered them constituted the greatest pressure, a contract at 16 cents a Cie yard rather than at 2714 cents which they had been paying, and resulted in a savings of $1.7 million below the figure they had estimated.

Transfers of funds such as were made last year are made only from projects where the corps cannot for one reason or another fully utilize the funds allocated. Such transfer, therefore, would not be to the detriment of any other project.

Mr. RABAUT. I know and I am not blaming you for it either.
Mr. Moss. Nor have my people.

Mr. RABAUT. I want to give you the feeling of the committee.

Mr. EvINS. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from California s to be commended. He has worked assiduously and arduously in behalf of this project and he has been very diligent in regard to this project.

Mr. RABAUT. There is no question about it. I am not scolding him. Mr. Moss. The chairman and I are very good friends. We do not Bold each other.

Mr. RABAUT. I am talking about the attitude of the committee, and 2 is understandable.

Mr. Moss. Would the gentlemen agree with me that that makes my problem a little more complex?

Mr. RABAUT. It does.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Moss. Thank you, sir.

TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 1960.

CALIFORNIA NAVIGATION PROJECTS

WITNESSES

HON. CLEMENT W. MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT H. LANGNER, MANAGER, MARINE EXCHANGE OF THE BAY REGION AND SECRETARY OF THE (SAN FRANCISCO) BAY REGION MARINE AFFAIRS CONFERENCE

DAN E. ANDERSEN, CITY MANAGER, SAN RAFAEL, CALIF.

Mr. EVINS (acting chairman). We are glad to have with us at this time Congressman Clem Miller of California, together with Mr. Robert Langner and Mr. Dan E. Andersen.

Congressman Miller, we shall be glad to hear from you at this time. Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce to you the principal speaker in behalf of this project, Mr. Robert H. Langner, manager of the Marine Exchange of the Bay Region.

Mr. EVINS. We shall be glad to hear from Mr. Langner.

Mr. LANGNER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I represent the Marine Exchange of the San Francisco Bay Region and its affiliated Marine Affairs Conference.

The first organization has represented the area's maritime interests for 111 years; the latter body-in existence only for several yearsprovides a wider representation for those in the 12-county region whose broad interests are united in matters of development of navigation.

Membership lists of the two agencies are appended to the prepared statement you have before you.

Our program in developing and presenting these annual recommendations to your committee has repeatedly been endorsed by official bodies of the region, and these current proposals have been approved by our two executive groups. Our program is also closely coordinated with the California Small Craft Harbor Division.

The greater bay region served by the Golden Gate enjoys an ocean trade volume of almost $1 million annually; we recorded $9,760 ship arrivals and departures last year-a 23 percent increase over 1950, and the average vessel size-and draft-is steadily increasing.

This vital traffic has been wholly dependent on the wisdom of the Congress in providing funds for our economical waterways.

The recommendations before you are for maintaining and expanding these facilities to keep pace with our unusually high growth rateof people, commerce, and industry.

We unanimously support the President's fiscal year 1961 budget proposals for regional navigation projects.

Because our requests exceed in some cases these proposals, we emphasize the greater importance of several.

We regard the comprehensive San Francisco Bay study-for which we are indebted to the foresight and imagination of the Congress-as of prime importance; the additional $200,000 requested would permit completion 111⁄2 years behind the original schedule, allow the bay model to be operated on a 5-day-a-week basis, and would accelerate pre

viously deferred work on navigation, flood control, small craft harbors, and shoaling studies.

The results of this key study will form the basis of most of our regional planning and projects for at least the next half century, and have been eagerly awaited for some time now.

The correlated engineers' investigation of the San Pablo-SuisunStockton Channel shares this importance and requires an additional $20,000 to maintain a concurrent schedule.

Also requested are funds for a modest study of Bolinas Bay Harbor, a project which has full local support and that of boatmen traveling the unfriendly California coastline with its scarcity of natural harbors.

We concur in recommending the $11 million allocation for the Sacramento deepwater channel, and ask that this great facility for the benefit of our inland empire be permitted to become fully operational in 1962-in an economical manner through maximizing use of equip

ment.

The requests for proper maintenance we believe are both reasonable and essential.

Several of these illustrate the plight of our buildup of backlog work: San Rafael Creek, Petaluma Ship Channel, and the Napa River. These plus two other lighter-draft-vessel facilities, Noyo Harbor, and Bodega Bay-have been long neglected.

We strongly recommend a system of annual rotation of maintenance of these five projects, so that each will receive the required dredging once every 5 years.

If one project must be selected over the others as a beginning, we urge that it be the heavily used San Rafael Creek, about which we receive almost daily complaints.

Finally, we urgently call attention to the increasing problem of debris on bay and adjacent waters, and ask that this danger to both navigation and life be at least alleviated more satisfactorily by an increase of $65,000 for drift control. Otherwise, present equipment and facilities available to the Army Engineers for this program will not be fully utilized in the coming fiscal period.

It is respectfully requested that my prepared statement, without the membership lists, be included in the proceedings of your

committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to be heard.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Langner follows:)

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am the manager of the Marine Exchange and secretary of the Bay Region Marine Affairs Conference.

The exchange is an organization which has represented the maritime industry of the bay region for the past 111 years. As you can see by the attached membership list, we speak for all segments of the region's economy which are dependent wholly or in part on maritime commerce, some 418 organizations, companies, and individuals.

The Bay Region Marine Affairs Conference is a related organization devoted to the expansion and development of the 12-county region's maritime resources. The current membership list is appended; it will be noted that it includes county supervisors, city and county officials, port officers, and others concerned with the adequacy of our commercial waterways.

The conference's objectives and current program have repeatedly been endorsed by official bodies in the region, and its activities closely coordinated with the California Small Craft Harbor Division in those areas of common interest.

54265-60-pt. 4- -23

Our region's congressional delegation also cooperates with us in our program, and has had an opportunity to review these recommendations.

The unparalleled growth of the bay region has presented unique problems because of the dependence of our regional economy on maritime commerce and allied activities, and in part due to the obstacles formed by our water areas to the development of intraregional land transportation.

This growth is indicated by a department of commerce study made for the Army Engineers and only recently available, which conservatively projects a population growth in the 9 counties forming the bay area from their present level of of 3,752,500 to 5,729,200 in 1980, 8,258,400 in the year 2000, and 14,407,200 by A.D. 2020.

A similar or even greater rate of growth is anticipated for the inland counties forming the remainder of the region.

The postwar expansion of industry and population has brought a corresponding increase in Golden Gate world trade and ship traffic; since 1950, the number of ships calling at our ports has increased 23 percent-last year there was a total of 9,760 oceangoing ship arrivals and departures; the percentage of vessel tonnage increase is even greater for the average vessel size is constantly increasing. The current trade volume handled by these ships now aggregates almost $1 billion annually.

This vital traffic has been wholly dependent on the wisdom of the Congress in providing funds for the development and maintenance of adequate deepwater navigation channels and facilities in our region.

Our future growth will reflect the decisions you make in assuring our people the continued advantages of full use of this great natural resource-San Francisco Bay and connecting waterways.

My purpose in presenting the following recommendations is to assure you that they reflect a regional approach and consensus in seeking orderly development of navigational needs, just as we approach our other problems in common-such as air pollution, water pollution, rapid transit, and others-to find solutions through regional effort.

These are our recommendations, approved by the two organizations which I represent:

Funds requested for Federal navigation projects in the 12-county bay region

1 This amount would leave approximately $590,000 to $610,000 to be appropriated for fiscal years 1962 and 1963 to complete the study as scheduled by June 1963.

2 $500,000 would allow the interim (barrier) report to be completed by June 1961, and the final report by June 1963. The full capability figure of $600,000 would allow a 6-month advance on the final report, to December 1962.