Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. HARSHA. What effect, if any, will this have on the duck hunting and goose hunting in that river?

Colonel YOUNG. Sir, we have received favorable comments on this project from the Fish and Wildlife Service. I assume, therefore, there will be no adverse effects.

Mr. HARSHA. That is fine.

Mr. JONES. If there are no further questions you may proceed to the next project.

CHANNEL TO NEWPORT NEWS, NORFOLK HARBOR, Va.

Colonel YOUNG. Channel to Newport News, Norfolk Harbor, Va., sir, is found on page 24 of the Senate report.

Hampton Roads together with the Newport News and Norfolk Harbor channels is at the southern end of Chesapeake Bay. Hampton Roads is a natural roadstead of about 25 square miles. Of particular interest to this proposed project is the existing Newport News Channel. There are no improved anchorages in Hampton Roads capable of accommodating the large deep draft vessels now in use without encroaching on adjacent project channels. In addition the movement of larger vessels in the 600-foot-wide Newport News Channel is hazardous. The Chief of Engineers recommends widening of the existing channel and the provision of four deep draft anchorage berths at an estimated Federal cost of $7,095,000 subject to certain requirements of local cooperation. Local interests have indicated a willingness to comply with the requirements.

The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.1 to 1. Comments of the State and Federal agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report. However, the Bureau of the Budget notes the possibility that construction of a pipeline from the Gulf States to the east coast may affect the economic justification of this project. The Bureau, therefore, states that in view of such possibility it would expect a reevaluation of the project prior to any request for funds for initiation of construction. This reevaluation will be made.

Mr. JONES. Colonel Young, how does the Bureau of the Budget come about this information which you did not have about the expectation of building a pipeline?

Colonel YOUNG. Sir, it was in our report and the Bureau of the Budget picked it up from our report.. We did not feel in making our report it would have any effect on the economic justification, but the Bureau of the Budget chose to comment on it.

Mr. BALDWIN. As I understand it, Colonel, there must be quite a number of oil tankers coming into this particular harbor. If a pipeline were built then a portion of these oil tankers might be superseded by the pipeline, in which case with less use of the shipping means for getting oil into the area there might not be as many ships using the deepwater channel and there might be some question with regard to the costs. Is this a summary of what might be developed? Colonel YOUNG. That is right, Mr. Baldwin. However, in the case of this particular project the export of coal is a much larger percentage of the commerce in this harbor than the import of petroleum products.

Mr. JONES. The next project.

NORFOLK HARBOR AND THIMBLE SHOALs, Va.

Colonel YOUNG. Norfolk Harbor and Thimble Shoals, Va., is on page 48 of the Senate document.

Existing Federal projects in the Norfolk Harbor area consist of the Thimble Shoals Channel, the Norfolk Harbor main channel, and the Newport News Channel. Deepening of these channels is necessary to better accommodate large bulk carriers. The Chief of Engineers recommends deepening of these channels generally from 40 to 45 feet with some minor widening and extension of existing projects at an estimated Federal cost of $25,600,000 subject to certain conditions of local cooperation. Local interests have indicated their willingness to meet the requirements of local cooperation. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 5.1 to 1. Comments from the State and Federal agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report. However, the Bureau of the Budget notes that no incremental justification is presented for the deepening of the anchorage area and that, therefore, it would expect further consideration be given to this matter prior to any request for funds to initiate their construction.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Any questions?

Mr. CLAUSEN. I notice you have a number of requests for deepening of channels. Is this because of the alteration of the type of ships that are being used? Are they going into larger units throughout the country?

Colonel YOUNG. Yes, sir; particularly in the large bulk carriers and more specifically in petroleum and coal-carrying colliers.

Mr. CLAUSEN. You find this throughout the country today?
Colonel YOUNG. Yes, sir.

Mr. CLAUSEN. In all areas?

Colonel YOUNG. Yes, sir. In many of the projects in the Atlantic region this is true.

Mr. CLAUSEN. I wanted to get that on the record.

Mr. EDMONDSON. You may proceed with the summary on that project.

Mr. HARSHA. May I ask a question while you are waiting on the

summary.

How do you derive the benefit on these projects?

Colonel YOUNG. The major portion of the benefits are in so-called transportation savings, the reduction in traveltime where ships, for example, might have to travel at half-speed in order to wait for a favorable tide to get into the port or might have to sit at anchor to wait to get into the port.

Mr. HARSHA. Do these benefits accrue to the general public or to the industry?

Colonel YOUNG. I believe they are directly attributable to the shipping industry, but indirectly to the general public in view of the increased commerce and use of the port facilities.

Mr. HARSHA. Then the benefit-cost ratio would be directly related to the accuracy of the tonnage that goes through that area, apparently. Colonel YOUNG. Yes, sir.

Mr. HARSHA. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Questions?

Mr. ROBERTS. Would you have a log, by any chance, showing the number of ships? Are there not very few ships with that heavy a

draft and which would require this dredging? Have you any idea how many are actually involved? What would be the number of such heavy carriers? You may supply that later.

Colonel YOUNG. I might say in the case of this particular project there is a very interesting development in the construction of larger coal colliers with deeper draft requirements. In the last 3 years there has been the construction of eight new vessels, from 1962 to the present time. In addition, the French have a new collier coming off the ways in the middle of 1966 of 83,000 tons capacity with a draft of over 44 feet. The Italians, similarly, have one coming off the ways by the end of 1966 with a draft requirement of 422 feet. As to the number of deep-draft users, as of January 1965, there were about 145 bulk carriers in use of which about 10 require depths greater than 40 feet. As of May of this year, about 100 ships were under construction which require depths of 36 to 45 feet.

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EDMONDSON. If we are to compete in the world coal market we must have channels and harbors to accommodate the vessels which are carrying that commerce.

Colonel YOUNG. Yes, sir; that is true, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Any further questions?

Mr. HARSHA. I have one other question, Mr. Chairman.

On page 2 of your report under annual benefits, the second item, "Transportation savings," $6,388,000. You have that separated from elimination of damages and savings in time. What are the transportation savings that you consider here? How do you arrive at that? Colonel YOUNG. Sir, the $10,000 annual benefit should be elimination of damages only. It is not the savings in time. The transportation savings include the savings in time which I mentioned.

Mr. HARSHA. That is what occurred to me. Thank you. Mr. EDMONDSON. This, it seems to me, illustrates the point that our water resources and our water transportation should be developed to fit into our economic development program. If we are to market the coal from Appalachia as a part of our overall development program, we must have the most efficient means possible to move that coal out to the world markets.

Colonel YOUNG. There have been several discussions, sir, between the State Department, the Department of the Interior and the corps. relative to this project. The French are building a large conventional steam generator plant at Le Havre. They plan on taking coal from this particular project in the large colliers which they are now building, for use in Le Havre for this steam generating plant. About 3 to 5 million tons a year additional export of coal is anticipated.

(The statement of American Merchant Marine Institute, Inc., follows:)

STATEMENT OF AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE INSTITUTE, INC., IN SUPPORT OF NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS IN NORFOLK HARBOR AND NEWPORT NEws, Va. The improvements recommended by the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, as developed by the Norfolk district engineer and approved by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Habors and set forth in the following House documents of the 89th Congress are as follows:

House Document 143: (1) Widening the present 40-foot channel to Newport News from 600 to 800 feet and (2) dredging two anchorage areas opposite New

port News and two anchorage areas opposite Sewells Point in Hampton Roads, Va., to a depth of 40 feet over a 1.200-foot swinging radius at an estimated cost of $7,095,000. The benefit-cost ratios for the foregoing improvements are 1.4 to 1 and 1.1 to 1, respectively.

House Document 187: (1) Deepening Thimble Shoal Channel and Norfolk Harbor Channel upstream opposite Lambert Point to a depth of 45 feet over the currently authorized channel widths, except that Craney Island Reach of the Norfolk Harbor Channel is to be widened from 750 to 800 feet; (2) deepening above channel to Newport News to 45 feet; (3) deepening the four 40-foot anchorage areas referred to above to 45 feet, with the easternmost anchorage off Sewells Point opposite the U.S. Naval Station in Norfolk and the adjacent naval maneuvering area to be dredged first and the deepening of the remaining three anchorage areas to be deferred until the need therefor develops; (4) deepening first mile of southern branch of Elizabeth River channel to 40 feet over its existing width, and (5) provision of a turning basin in the southern branch opposite St. Julian Creek. The estimated cost of the improvements recommended in House Document 187 is $25,600,000 and the benefit-cost ratio is 5.1 to 1.

The AMMI, on behalf of its member companies operating oceangoing vessels to terminals in Norfolk and Newport News, presented a statement to the Norfolk district engineer at a hearing held in January 1962 requesting navigation improvements in the above waterways, including provision of 45-foot channels to Newport News and to Lambert Point in Norfolk Harbor in order to accommodate large bulk carriers at fully loaded draft and thereby achieve economy of operation and reduction in transportation costs.

The institute strongly recommends authorization of the above needed improvements.

Mr. EDMONDSON. The next project.

SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA.

Colonel YOUNG. Savannah Harbor, Ga., sir, is on page 66 of the Senate report.

Savannah Harbor comprises the lower 21.3 miles of the Savannah River which forms the boundary between the States of Georgia and South Carolina. Existing channel depths restrict passage of deep draft vessels to periods of high tides and do not permit full loading of the larger tankers and cargo vessels now using the existing project. In addition, present channel widths and limited turning areas restrict safe and expeditious maneuvering of vessels. The Chief of Engineers recommends a general plan of channel deepening and widening and enlargement of an existing turning basin at an estimated Federal cost of $7,112,000 subject to certain conditions of local cooperation. Local interests have indicated a willingness to meet the local cooperation requirements. The benefit to cost ratio is 1.3 to 1. Comments of the State and Federal agencies are favorable. The Department of the Interior urges that local interests acquire lands to replace those lands to be used as spoil disposal in the Savannah National Wildlife Refuge. This matter wil be coordinated during the preconstruction planning of the project. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report.

Mr. JONES. Are there questions?

Mr. HARSHA. I notice in this proposal the price level goes to 1961. I believe most of them are 1963.

Colonel YOUNG. It should make no substantial difference, sir. The benefit should increase at the same time that the project costs increase, maybe not at exactly the same proportion, but there should be an increase in both.

Mr. HARSHA. You are only 0.3 of 1 percent over 1 to 1, and I just wondered if there would be a sufficient increase in cost that might make this a rather marginal project.

Colonel YOUNG. We have an indication, sir, that the benefits have actually increased since this report was submitted, but unfortunately it is not contained in this information. We will provide it for the record.

Mr. HARSHA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The requested information follows:)

Bulk shipments have increased by about 160,000 tons annually from a new gypsum company located in the area, which has already had a shipment by a vessel drawing 35 feet 3 inches. A recent review of the report economics indicates two classes of benefits that were not evaluated in the report: (1) Savings for petroleum products carried in the larger and deeper loaded tankers now coming into use, and (2) savings from bulk shipments in large vessels.

Mr. JONES. The next project.

JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FLA.

Colonel YOUNG. Jacksonville Harbor, Fla., sir, on page 40 of the Senate report.

Jacksonville Harbor provides generally for a deepwater navigation channel extending up to the St. Johns River a distance of about 27 miles. Existing channel depths restrict passage of deep-draft vessels to periods of high tides and do not permit full loading of the larger tankers and cargo vessels. In addition, present channel depths and widths restrict safe and expeditious maneuvering of vessels. The Chief of Engineers recommends channel deepening of the deep-draft channels and widening in certain locations at an estimated Federal cost of $8,484,000, subject to certain requirements of local cooperation, including a cash contribution now estimated at $226,000. Local interests have indicated their willingness to meet the requirements of local cooperation. The benefits-to-cost ratio is 2 to 1. Comments of the State and Federal agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report. However, the Bureau of the Budget states that if access facilities for hunting and fishing are incorporated in the project plan it would expect that their development would be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Water Project Recreation Act.

Mr. JONES. Have we a request from the Department of the Interior for reservations for the purpose of wildlife?

Colonel YOUNG. We do have a request from the Department of the Interior to coordinate it, sir, and we have indicated that we will do it. Mr. JONES. They had no objection to the submission of the request? Colonel YOUNG. No, sir.

Mr. JONES. Further questions?

(The statements by Congressman Charles E. Bennett and American Merchant Marine Institute, Inc., follow :)

STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN CHARLES E. BENNETT, OF FLORIDA, BEFORE THE HOUSE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to make a statement to the committee on behalf of an important project in Jacksonville, Fla., that has great influence on the economy and national defense of the whole country.

District and division Corps of Engineers, the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and the Army Chief of Engineers have recommended that the

« PreviousContinue »