Several points deserve emphasis: The conference unanimously supports the President's fiscal year 1961 budget proposals for bay regional navigation projects. Secondly, because our recommendations represent an increase of $5,100,000 over the President's budget, our organizations have established general areas of priorities, with the unanimous approval of their respective executive bodies. Of prime importance to our region is the comprehensive San Francisco Bay study. Approval of the requested $600,000 will permit completion of this key investigation 11⁄2 years behind the original target date of June 1960. The lower figure of $400,000 would retard the study, in all its phases, by an additional 6 months. This is a further lag we can ill afford. The study represents the major planning efforts in the entire bay region to provide for the optimum use of our natural resources over the next half century. Its results eagerly awaited for some time now-will affect our future development of water resources in their broadest sense. Industrial expansion, land reclamation, transbay transportation, small craft harbors, salinity intrusion in our estuaries and delta areas-all will be affected by the study's findings. The correlated Army Engineers' investigation of the San Pablo-Suisun-Stockton Channel shares the importance of the bay study and requires an additional $20,000 to maintain a concurrent schedule. Congressman Michael J. Kirwan, of Ohio, and his colleagues on the Subcommittee on Public Works, have on several occasions inspected our region's projects and I am sure they appreciate the need to match our physical development to our accelerating growth rate. Our communities are, and will be, greatly indebted to the foresight and imagination of the Congress in authorizing the magnificant bay study and related projects. Their benefits will redound to the ultimate benefit of the entire Nation. Another study—more modest and therefore often overlooked—is that of Bolinas Bay Harbor, which was initially authorized as one of a group included in the River and Harbor Act of 1945; a preliminary investigation completed in 1949 stressed the need for a full study of the feasibility of the project. This project has full local support plus that of boatmen navigating the long California coastline with its scarity of natural harbors. The Sacramento deepwater channel could be in operation to serve the new port at the State's capital a full year sooner if $11 million is authorized for the coming fiscal year. Last year's reduction in construction funds below the President's request for this major project retarded its completion date; now 60 percent constructed, the benefits which will accrue to our inland empire would be hastened in an economical manner if the additional funds were available this year-through maximum utilization of dredging and other equipment concentrated on the site. Half Moon Bay could possibly be completed in July of 1961 should an additional $600,000 be appropriated. This is 9 to 12 months sooner than the present projected date. This harbor will serve one of the fastest growing areas in the State, according to the Department of Commerce report previously cited. In maintenance appropriations, we attach the greatest importance to the proper maintenance of deepwater channels in the region, especially as the average size of our vessels steadily increases, and the new supertankers come increasingly into use. We fully support, therefore, the President's budget requests for Oakland, Redwood City. Richmond, and San Francisco Harbors, and for the San Pablo Bay and Mare Island Channel. The current budget proposals are adequate for these projects, but any reduction would stifle the growing traffic served by these waterways. In addition, we support the increases shown in the recommendations for the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers, Stockton and Mormon Channel, and the Suisun Channel, and the budget proposals for the Suisun Bay and Old River. These increases are supported provided they can be made without reducing appropriations for other projects requested. Recommendations are also made for maintenance funds for San Rafael Creek, Petaluma Ship Channel, and the Napa River. These lighter draft vessel facilities have been long neglected. Each of them requires dredging at intervals of 4 to 5 years; two other projects in the same general area are in this category-Noyo Harbor and Bodega Bay. At the present time, all five require maintenance dredging to achieve authorized depths. The conference strongly recommends the establishment of a system of annual rotation of maintenance so that each facility would be dredged every 5 years. If the Congress feels that sufficient funds are not available to provide maintenance in fiscal year 1961 for all five projects, we urge that at least one be included in the current budget proposals. Our suggestion is that the San Rafael Creek be selected as the initial project under such a system, with the subsequent addition in succeeding years of the other four projects mentioned. Seldom does a day pass without a complaint being received at our offices on the inadequacy of the present San Rafael Channel. An alternate method of resolving the current maintenance problem caused by a buildup of backlog work is unanimously supported by our group: the assignment of such overdue projects as "construction" budget items for 1 year and their subsequent reassignment to the maintenance category where normal funds would then suffice. Finally, the conference most urgently calls attention to a rapidly growing regional problem: the great increase of debris on bay and adjacent waters. The considerable efforts of the Army Engineers and those by local government agencies are not yet adequate fully to contend wtih this menace to both deepdraft vessels and pleasure craft. The funds proposed in the President's budget for this program would not permit full use of equipment presently available to the Army Engineers. Currently, an additional $65,000 would permit the use of a recently acquired YSD vessel and catamaran, two small tugs converted to debris boats, and recently constructed shoreside disposal facilities. Under today's conditions, it is not known even that these measures will be sufficient to cope with this problem, but without their full use there will be danger not only to vessels but to lives as well. Thank you for this opportunity to present this testimony. BAY REGION MARINE AFFAIRS CONFERENCE OF THE MARINE MEMBERSHIP EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Henry R. Rolph, chairman, San Francisco City and County supervisor Iona M. Booth, general manager, Contra Costa County Development Association S. S. Gorman, port engineer, San Francisco Port Authority Donald A. Jensen, Marin County administrator Jay Kramer, manager, civic affairs department, San Jose Chamber of Commerce Bob La Rue, public works department, county of Napa H. G. Lorentzen, president, Lorentzen Co. Merritt D. McCarl, port manager, port of Redwood City J. W. McDermott, Yolo County Board of Supervisors H. E. Sanderson, chairman, Stockton Port Commission Leigh S. Shoemaker, chairman, Sonoma County Board of Supervisors William G. Stone, port director, Sacramento-Yolo Port District Vernon Timmons, manager, Napa Chamber of Commerce GENERAL MEMBERSHIP Alameda County Board of Supervisors: Contra Costa County Board of Super Frank E. Feliz, manager, World Trade Center Earl D. Fraser, Sacramento County Planning Department Luther E. Gibson, California State senator and publisher, Vallejo Morning Fred Jensen, San Rafael city councilman M. L. C. Keating, Standard Oil Co. John C. Lilly, city manager, city of Stockton T. D. MacMullen, west coast editor and manager, Marine Engineering/Log J. H. McJunkin, manager, Northern California Ports & Terminals Bureau D. M. Patterson, Jr., Stauffer Chemical Co. William H. Quayle, assistant to general manager, Bethlehem Steel Corp., Pacific Coast division Rear Adm. G. M. Richardson, Raytheon Manufacturing Co. Adm. Murrey L. Royar, Washington representative of Alameda County, city of Oakland, and Oakland Chamber of Commerce Carl W. Sauer, Novo Harbor Commission Henry W. Simonsen, chairman, California Board of Pilot Commissioners Leo H. Wuesthoff, San Francisco Bay and River pilot Mr. EVINS. Mr. Langner, would you be kind enough to give us the highlights as to the priority of the projects which you are requesting? Mr. LANGNER. Yes, sir; the request for the "Comprehensive Bay Study" is, we think, of prime importance. One other matter is several smaller channels for light-draft vessels. Then there is the Napa River project. We have the San Rafael Creek, the Petaluma Ship Channel, and the Napa River. These plus two other lighter draftvessel 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, and we think by putting them on an annual 5-year swing this could be attained. If necessary to choose one of these five projects, and if one project must be selected over the others as a beginning, we would select the San Rafael Creek. That would be our priority. We would also attach great priority to the problem of debris on bay waters which is increasing very much, and initial funds are needed for that because the present program is inadequate. Mr. EVINS. Thank you very much, Mr. Langner. Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to present you and the members of the committee Mr. Dan E. Andersen, the city manager of the city of San Rafael. Mr. Andersen is a devoted public servant. I should like to recommend him very highly. Mr. EVINS. We are delighted to hear you and we respect your Congressman very much in Washington. STATEMENT OF MR. DAN E. ANDERSEN Mr. ANDERSEN. As city manager of San Rafael, I feel that while $185,000 is a very small amount of money, it represents something that is a prime need and, therefore, they pulled me from my office and sent me to Washington to plead for the $185,000 to be put in the budget for the maintenance of the San Rafael Canal which has been and is the property of the Corps of Engineers, having been deeded to them in 1921 by the city. The deed was implicit in that it would be maintained by the Corps of Engineers. It has not been touched since 1954. We have now quite a lot of commercial tonnage going out of the canal. Recreation, we feel, should be considered seriously in our area because of the climatic conditions. Recreation is commerce and we realize a tremendous amount of revenue, both city, county, State, and Federal income tax, from the commerce created by the recreational facilities. We are deeply concerned that this $185,000 should be submitted in the budget and that the engineers be authorized to do this work. Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, if I may say, it is interesting to note that these North Bay counties of San Francisco Bay have gotten together and made this San Rafael Canal their No. 1 priority, even though the other areas very desperately need help as well. I would like to emphasize, if I may, that the recreation under discussion here is a cold business proposition to us. It is commerce to us, as Mr. Andersen has said. Mr. EVINS. Of course, there are bills pending in Congress for benefit-cost ratios with respect to recreation, and there are many aspects of it. TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 1960. CALIFORNIA SMALL CRAFT HARBOR WITNESS REX THOMSON, DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SMALL CRAFT HARBORS FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIF. Mr. EVINS. We are delighted to have with us at this time Mr. Rex Thomson of the department of small-craft harbors for the county of Los Angeles, Calif. Mr. Thomson, we shall be glad to hear from you at this time. Mг. THOMSON. In appreciation, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, of the limited time and heavy agenda, I will be very brief. I hope my points will be pertinent. County funds of $21,215,487 will have been firmly committed or expended upon this subject project by the county of Los Angeles as of June 30, 1960. This amount is comprised of $15,072,840 general tax funds plus $6,142,647 Marina revenue bond funds. The sum of $6,634,807 will be available for expenditure in the fiscal year 1961. This total is comprised of $1,591,807 general tax funds and $5,043,000 revenue bond funds. With completion estimated as of January 1, 1962, the amount of approximately $3 million Federal funds and $27,850,294 county funds will have gone into this project's development costs. The county's interest charges on its Marina revenue bond issue are $2,022 per day and any delay in completion further prohibits the receipt of compensating operational revenues adequate to meet the interest and retirement service for said revenue bond issue: $13 million. The administrative budget recommended the provision of $154,000 new money to the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, to finance their participation in this project for fiscal year 1961. Therefore, we respectfully request your favorable consideration to the end that $154,000 new money be provided the Corps of Engineers in this coming fiscal year, that the United States and the county may continue the uninterrupted development of this project and in so doing best protect the investment which both parties now have in this work. I would like to just say that this is the next to the last year the corps has been able to impound by the savings that we made in our joint contracts on the dredging and the jetties, about $450,000. We have a $4 million dredging contract underway at this time, of which the Federal Government is paying but 25 percent of that cost. The $154,000 is to supplement the funds in hand that the Corps of Engineers now has so that they can continue uninterrupted and coordinate and continue side by side with us to complete the dredging for this year. |