JUSTIFICATION OF THE ESTIMATE

Mr. ROONEY. At this point we shall insert in the record pages 2 and 3 of the justifications.

CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION CLAIMS, FEDERAL AIRPORT ACT

Section 17 of the Federal Airport Act as amended by Public Law 840, Eightieth Congress, second session, provides that the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics "is authorized on behalf of the United States, to consider, ascertain, and determine, in accordance with regulations he shall prescribe”—the actual or estimated cost of such necessary rehabilitation or repair of substantial damages to public airports, for which such public agency is entitled to reimbursement from the United States.

"Such amount as may be found by the Administrator to be the actual or estimated cost of such rehabilitation or repair shall be certified by the Administrator to Congress.'

There are attached documents which indicate certification by the Administrator that certain requests for rehabilitation of the public airports at Landor County, Nev., Sacramento, Calif., Birmingham, Ala., Great Falls, Mont., Delta, Utah, county of Moore, N. C., Helena, Mont., Stockton, Calif., and Santa Barbara, Calif., are valid. An appropriation of funds to provide for payment of substantial damages incurred by Federal agencies to these specific airports is requested at this time. This appropriation will provide for the physical completion of the repair and rehabilitation during the coming construction period, thereby eliminating any loss of time which could cause further damage to the airports.

The petitioner's request and the amounts found due are as follows:

GENERAL STATEMENT

Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Hemphill, will you direct yourself generally, at this point, to the alleged necessity of this request at this time?

Mr. HEMPHILL. Under section 17 of the Federal Airport Act as amended communities were entitled to present claims for damage incurred by Federal agencies to the airport. This request which we have here now is in compliance with section 17 of the Federal Airport Act.

Mr. ROONEY. None of these claims concerning any of these airports have been previously presented to the committee?

Mr. HEMPHILL. No, sir; they have not.

Mr. ROONEY. Have any claims in regard to any one of the airports mentioned in House Document 640 been presented to the committee previously?

Mr. HEMPHILL. No, sir; they have not.

DELTA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

Mr. ROONEY. What is the situation with regard to the request of $1,272 by the Delta Municipal Airport, Delta, Utah?

Mr. HEMPHILL. The airport was damaged by the Grazing Service of the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, on February 11, 1949, when the airport was used by such Federal agency in what is commonly known as Operation Haylift. The runway lights, including snow guards, were damaged and broken by the blades of bulldozers used in removing the snow from the runways. Mr. ROONEY. Is the petitioner in this case a public agency? Mr. HEMPHILL. It is a public agency; yes, sir.

Mr. ROONEY. And this is a public airport?

Mr. HEMPHILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROONEY. What was the amount originally requested in this claim by the city of Delta, Utah?

Mr. HEMPHILL. $1,464.50.

Mr. ROONEY. And how much are you agreeing to pay?

Mr. HEMPHILL. $1,272, being the estimate to recondition the field. Mr. ROONEY. Is the statement correct that you do not pay the money until the repairs to the public airport are made?

Mr. HEMPHILL. That is correct. We pay only on the actual cost of performing the repairs.

Mr. ROONEY. And after the repairs have been made?

Mr. HEMPHILL. We do have provision for making progress payments after certain portions of the work have been done, but the final payment is not made until the work is completed and accepted by the CAA.

KNOLLWOOD AIRPORT

Mr. ROONEY. What is the situation regarding the Knollwood Airport, county of Moore, N. C., where the amount asked is $21,515? Mr. HEMPHILL. The Knollwood Airport was substantially damaged by the United States Army during the period between March 3, 1942, and December 18, 1947, when the airport was under lease to the United States. The northeast-southwest and northwest-southeast landing strips are sparsely turfed and entirely destroyed in many

places. The drainage system for the northeast-southwest landing strip has been badly damaged. The hangars-buildings T-102, T-103, and T-104-require painting and much general repair.

The necessary rehabilitation or repair is being or will be accomplished by the restoration, betterment or replacement of the northeastsouthwest and northwest-southeast land strips and hangars.

Mr. ROONEY. What was the amount requested by the county of Moore, N. C.?

Mr. HEMPHILL. They requested $22,160 and we have certified to the Congress $21,515.

SECTION 17 CLAIMS, FEDERAL-AID AIRPORT ACT

Mr. ROONEY. Do you have a statement showing the present status of section 17 claims, under the Federal-Aid Airport Act?

Mr. HEMPHILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROONEY. At this point we shall insert in the record this chart showing the status of section 17 claims.

(The matter referred to is as follows:)

Status of sec. 17 claims, Federal-aid Airport Act, Civil Aeronautics

Status of sec. 17 claims, Feleral-aid Airport Act, Civil Aeronautics
Administration-Continued

HELENA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, HELENA, MONT.

Mr. ROONEY. Will you address yourself briefly to the next item, "Helena Municipal Airport, Helena, Mont., $2,485"?

Mr. HEMPHILL. The Helena Municipal Airport was substantially damaged by the United States Army during the period between July 13, 1942, and October 30, 1946. The surfaces of the east/west and northeast/southwest runways were broken, cracked and grooved, more particularly at the intersection thereof. The necessary rehabilitation or repair has been accomplished by the restoration of the east/west and northeast/southwest runways.

The city of Helena, Mont., had requested $4,175. The CAA has certified $2,485.

Mr. ROONEY. I am glad to see such a substantial difference between the requested amount and the amount you certified. That did not apply in the last previous instance.

STOCKTON FIELD, STOCKTON, CALIF.

What is the situation with regard to Stockton Field, Stockton, Calif., $42,149?

Mr. HEMPHILL. Stockton Field was under lease to the United States Government from July 1940, to December of 1948. During this period the Army engineers constructed what was known as mat B. It was an area approximately 200 feet by 4,500 feet along. On this mat there was constructed a test section approximately 150 feet wide, 700 feet long and about 4 feet high.

Mr. ROONEY. For the purpose of testing what?

Mr. HEMPHILL. For the purpose of testing some of the aircraft there. We have no information on that except that it was known as the test area. It has proven out that this test area is extremely hazardous to the operation of aircraft, and in several instances aircraft on final approach made a landing on this runway, on the landing mat, and narrowly escaped collision with the test area. The city of Stockton desires to remove that test area from the landing mat.

Mr. ROONEY. What was there before the mat was constructed?

Mr. HEMPHILL. There was nothing there, sir. The mat was constructed by the Army.

Mr. ROONEY. On the portion of this runway where the mat is now, there had been nothing at all?

Mr. HEMPHILL. I did not quite understand your question, sir.

Mr. ROONEY. Before the construction of the mat, there was nothing there at all?

Mr. HEMPHILL. That is right, sir.

Mr. ROONEY. And the mat was made part of the runway?
Mr. HEMPHILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROONEY. And that was constructed at Government expense?
Mr. HEMPHILL. That is right, sir.

Mr. ROONEY. How do you figure that the Government is indebted to the city of Stockton in this connection?

Mr. HEMPHILL. To restore the field to the original condition, thereby eliminating any hazard to aircraft flying, which requires the entire elimination of mat B in addition to the test section. It has been found that it would be much cheaper merely to eliminate the test section than it would be to eliminate the entire mat.

Mr. ROONEY. And it was alleged that it would cost $71,000 to do this?

Mr. HEMPHILL. Yes, sir; that was the price requested by the city of Stockton.

Mr. ROONEY. And this is merely to get rid of the mat?

Mr. HEMPHILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROONEY. I still fail to see where the Government would be involved in this.

Mr. HEMPHILL. The present construction on the field which was installed by the Army is extremely hazardous to aircraft. They are unable to keep aircraft from landing on this mat, particularly in periods of low visibility.

Mr. ROONEY. Is this mat higher than the regular runway?

Mr. HEMPHILL. It is at about the same elevation. The mat itself is at the same level as the other runways, but the test section itself is 4 feet above the elevation of the mat and the other runways.

Mr. ROONEY. What sort of work is to be done for the $42,149? Mr. HEMPHILL. Merely taking off the 4-foot elevation of the test section and reducing that to the same elevation and grade as the rest of the field.

Mr. ROONEY. That is a construction job rather than a demolition job, is it not?

Mr. HEMPHILL. Well, it is a demolition job in the fact that you are tearing up the test section, taking it out, and reconstructing the area which was occupied by the test section.

Mr. ROONEY. Why do we have to reconstruct it? Was it not the intention under this law to put the airports back in the condition in which they were before the Government took them over?

Mr. HEMPHILL. It would cost more to put the field back into its original condition.

Mr. ROONEY. What are the figures on that?

Mr. HEMPHILL. $71,000. The city had originally requested $71,000. The city had originally requested $71,000 as the cost of putting the field back in the original condition. During our investigation at the field itself we were able to convince the community that it