ASHTABULA HARBOR, OHIO Ashtabula Harbor is located on the south shore of Lake Erie about 59 miles easterly of Cleveland, Ohio. The existing Federal navigation project provides for an outer harbor about 185 acres in area protected by breakwaters and an inner harbor consisting of the lower 2 miles of the Ashtabula River. Ashtabula County, with a population of 93,067 in 1960, is the area directly tributary to the harbor. The principal industries in the area are those related to chemicals and allied projects, fabricated metal products, and rubber and plastic products. Waterborne commerce for the years 1954 through 1963 averaged about 10,250,000 tons annually, of which 6,623,000 tons were receipts of iron ore for transshipment to inland steel mills; 2,764,000 tons were shipments of coal; and 557,000 tons were receipts of limestone, both for transshipment and consumption locally. There are inadequate depths in the east outer harbor to allow vessels serving the adjacent terminals to be loaded to the maximum draft of 25.5 feet permitted by the Great Lakes connecting channels and the St. Lawrence Seaway. The recommended improvement provides for deepening the existing access channel and the basin in the east outer harbor to a depth of 28 feet in soft material and 29 feet in hard material. The usual items of local cooperation are required and local interests have indicated their willingness and ability to meet these requirements. Total estimated construction cost is $1,840,000. Annual charges are $81,500. Annual benefits consisting of savings in transportation costs are estimated at $125,900, resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 1.5 to 1. The State of Ohio and the Department of the Interior favor the project. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of the report to the Congress. This completes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you for waiting all morning, Congressman Stanton. Do you have a statement to make? Additional supplementary material may be put in the record at this point. STATEMENT OF HON. J. WILLIAM STANTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO Mr. STANTON. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, my purpose in appearing before you this morning is simply to introduce and to bring with me Mr. Benham G. Cheney, of the Ashtabula Port Authority, and to answer any specific questions that you might have. In order to take a minimum amount of time, I have no prepared statement. I just wanted to be here in case the committee had any questions about this project. The city of Ashtabula and its harbor has grown rapidly in recent years. It is now the sixth largest port on the Great Lakes in terms of total tonnage handled each year, and this proposed project is not only necessary for its continued growth, but time is of the essence as far as the completion of the project is concerned. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Congressman. Do you want Mr. Benliam Cheney to appear with you? Mr. STANTON. Mr. Benham Cheney is here and Mr. Cheney is available in case any of the committee members have any questions they would like to ask. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you. Thank you for appearing here. Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, I have one question. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Clausen. Mr. CLAUSEN. Actually the reason for the project, Mr. Stanton, is this because you are utilizing now a deeper draft vessel-we find this is happening all over the country-and you need more depth and more draft potential? Mr. STANTON. You are absolutely correct. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you. Mr. Cheney, did you have a statement? STATEMENT OF BENHAM G. CHENEY, CHAIRMAN, ASHTABULA PORT AUTHORITY, ASHTABULA, OHIO Mr. CHENEY. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman and members, thank you for the opportunity to appear here. My name is Benham G. Cheney. I am chairman of the Ashtabula Port Authority, Ashtabula, Ohio. I would like to make a short informal statement to the effect that since this study was made, Ashtabula has made considerable strides in this area in commercial activity. Just for example, the number of ships that have called this year in this area versus last year, April had 5 in 1965, 6 in 1964; May had 21 in 1965 and 11 in 1964; June had 29 in 1965 and 9 in 1964; July had 24 in 1965 and 10 in 1964. The increase in commercial activity by ship has grown by leaps and bounds and is in some measure expected. In the meantime, since this study was made, this area has acquired additional tonnage of 700,000 tons per year on a contract basis of limestone for Union Carbide. And since this study was made, Ashtabula has gone from eighth position in general cargo, seaway cargo, to sixth position in general cargo. Ashtabula achieved in the harbor as a whole the position of first place in seaway cargo in 1964 and this improvement is almost in the nature of a distressed condition, because the ships are arriving and the water is too shallow. It has been academic more or less because prior to the recent conditions of drought in the Great Lakes, a surplus of water depth is generally available on the south shore of Lake Erie to the extent of from 3 feet of extra depth over low-water datum. But the last 2 years have seen the water depth go below low-water datum at the end of the season, and this is a hardship on the commercial traffic. The increase in prosperity due to this general cargo activity has gone from zero in 1962 to the use of 675 casual laborers in 1964, some measure for employment for 675 laborers, and gone from a total employment in general cargo activity of 20 on a year-round 40-hour basis to 150 on a year-round 40-hour basis. It is a vital matter of growth to the city of Ashtabula and very much important to us. Thank you very kindly. 52-329-65-pt. 3- -6 Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much. Mr. STANTON. Thank you very much. Mr. BLATNIK. Houston ship channel, Texas. Colonel Kristoferson. STATEMENT OF LT. COL. R. S. KRISTOFERSON, CORPS OF Mr. Chairman and gentleman of the committee, this report is submitted in response to a resolution of the Committee on Public Works of this House, adopted August 15, 1961. It concerns navigation on Greens Bayou in Texas. HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TEXAS Greens Bayou is a small stream which drains into the Houston ship channel near Houston, Tex. It originally had natural depths of 10 to 21 feet. In recent years, local interests have dredged Greens Bayou to a depth of 36 feet for a distance of 1,800 feet above the mouth, and depths of 15 to 20 feet throughout the remainder of the lower 1.15 miles of the bayou. No dredging work has been done upstream of that point. About 20 navigation-oriented businesses are situated on the bayou within the 3.7 mile reach between the mouth of the bayou and Interstate Highway 10 bridge. All of these concerns have ship or barge terminal or transfer facilities. Local interests want the Federal Government to assume maintenance of the locally-dredged channel and to extend it upstream at various depths as far as U.S. Highway 90 near mile 11.2. The Chief of Engineers recommends restoration of the existing channel from mile 0 to mile 0.34 to a depth of 36 feet and a width of 175 feet, but with no Federal dredging within 75 feet of adjacent. wharves; and dredging of a channel 15 feet deep and 100 feet wide from mile 0.34 to mile 1.55, thence 12 feet deep and 100 feet wide to mile 2.81, with widening at two bends. The estimated Federal cost is $470,000 for construction and $39,000 annually for operation and maintenance. The estimated non-Federal cost is $210,000 for construction and $4,900 for maintenance and operation. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 2.1 to 1. Local interests are required to provide the usual assurances connected with navigation projects and have indicated willingness to comply. Comments of the State of Texas and the Federal agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of this report. Gentlemen, this concludes my statement. Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Mr. BLATNIK. It is a very good project, relatively small, thoroughly justified, with a 2-to-1 cost ratio; is that right? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. That is right. Mr. BLATNIK. Congressman Albert Thomas, a very good friend and colleague, discussed this with the Chair and other members of the committee. The record shows his strong interest and support of this project for some time. Thank you very much, Colonel. Colonel Crawford Young. STATEMENT OF COL. CRAWFORD YOUNG, CORPS OF ENGINEERS Colonel YOUNG. Thank you. The Cape Fear River project was added to the Senate bill during discussion on the floor and is, therefore, not included in the Senate committee report. CAPE FEAR RIVER, N.C. The Cape Fear River is formed in central North Carolina by the confluence of the Deep and the Haw Rivers and flows generally southeast about 198 miles before emptying into the Atlantic Ocean near Cape Fear, 28 miles below Wilmington, N.C. The existing navigation project for the Cape Fear River consists of a channel from Wilmington to Navassa, 25 feet deep and generally 200 feet wide; and a navigation channel, 8 feet deep, from Navassa to Fayetteville, 115 miles above Wilmington. Present channel dimensions and river alinement between Navassa and Acme limit barge traffic to single tows of about 7-foot drafts. Barges frequently strike the river banks in the tight bends in this portion of the river. The Chief of Engineers recommends modification of the existing project to provide a channel 12 feet deep and 140 feet wide from Navassa to Acme, a distance of about 26 miles, together with 5 channel cutoffs 12 feet deep and 150 feet wide to eliminate the sharp bends in the river between these communities and to permit fuller loading of existing barges, at an estimated Federal cost of $1,510,000, subject to certain requirements of local cooperation. The local interests will be required to provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way to include spoil disposal areas: to hold and save the United States free from damages; and to provide terminal and transfer facilities. Local interests have indicated their willingness and ability to meet the requirements of local cooperation. The estimated annual benefits are $251,500 and the estimated annual charges are $150,300, resulting in a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.7 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. Mr. BLATNIK. A very good report, very reasonable cost-to-benefit ratio. Congressman Lennon, you have been waiting patiently for the last hour and a half. We appreciate your being with us. STATEMENT OF HON. ALTON LENNON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Mr. LENNON. In the interest of time, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I would like to ask you now to insert the full text of my statement in the record at this point. Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection, so ordered. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. ALTON LENNON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am glad to appear in support of the project on the Cape Fear River above Wilmington, N.C. The improvements offered by this project will provide a channel 12 feet deep and 140 feet wide from Navassa, N.C.. 4 miles above Wilmington, to mile board 30 at Acme, N.C., just below lock and dam No. 1. Five tight bends in the river will also be eliminated. Improvements in the upper Cape Fear are essential to the expansion of existing industry and to industries which have indicated their intention to establish plants along the river. The subject project would provide safer navigation conditions, more economical transportation costs, and more attractive industrial sites. At present barges are not able to load to full capacity, and the tight bends and narrow channel restrict shippers to single-barge tows of 7-foot drafts. Frequently barges collide with riverbanks at the bends in the river. Industries located on the Cape Fear River within the area of the proposed project include two nationally known ones the Allied Chemical Co. and the Riegelwood Pulp & Paper Co. The U.S. Corps of Engineers survey reveals that there is a substantial movement of commodities to and from these two industries alone and that only a small portion of this traffic is able to move over the existing 8-foot channel. The survey shows there could be an annual saving of $251,500 in transportation costs by the use of a 12-foot channel and straightening of the bends. It was also found by the survey that the two referenced companies alone could provide additional annual waterborne commerce of about 181,500 tons. The Engineers give the project a benefit-cost ratio of 1.7 to 1. A factor contributing substantially to the economic feasibility of this project is the port of Fayetteville, an integral part of the North Carolina State Ports Authority, located approximately 80 miles above the area to be improved. The Fayetteville port is being developed by the State of North Carolina as an inland terminal for the Fort Bragg Army Post, the Pope Air Force Base, and the central and industrial Piedmont areas. The future of the port is dependent upon the waterway deepening to be provided by this project. The area of the project offers many essential inducements to industry-excellent year-round climate, ample ground and surface fresh water, unlimited supply of electricity and natural gas. In addition to the navigable river the area is served by two trunkline railroads, good highways, and primary airports near Wilmington and Fayetteville. Great economic benefits to North Carolina will flow from the development of the Cape Fear Waterway. The Senate has included this project in their omnibus public works authorization bill for fiscal 1966. I would urge and appreciate your similar favorable consideration. Mr. LENNON. I would only add to what has been so fluently and eloquently said by Colonel Young, that this project has the unqualified support of the State of North Carolina in all of its principal agencies, particularly the North Carolina State Ports Authority, the commission on waterway and harbor development, and our water resources commission. I would mention very briefly one of the factors that we think contributes substantially to the economic feasibility of the project, and that is the fact that the North Carolina State Ports Authority has now located in Fayetteville, N.C., 90 miles inland, part of the State port park facility, to serve Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, as well as Piedmont, N.C. I certainly request, urge, and would appreciate similar favorable action that was taken by the Senate in consideration of the omnibus public works bill. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much, Congressman. Off the record. |