Framers of the Constitution sought to encour- 

 age interstate commerce by extending the concept 

 of free use of navigable waters to include coastal 

 harbors and entrance channels. The Commerce 

 clause^ of the Constitution delegated to Congress 

 the power "to regulate commerce with foreign 

 nations and among the several states" and stipu- 

 lates "no preference shall be given by any regula- 

 tion of commerce or revenue to the ports of one 

 state over those of another; nor shall vessels bound 

 to, or from, one state be obliged to enter, clear or 

 pay duties to another." 



During the earliest years of the Nation's his- 

 tory, Federal interest in navigation improvements 

 tended to concentrate on inland requirements. 

 This initial focus was appropriate, for, given the 

 vessel technology of the time, coastal harbors in 

 their natural conditions generally were adequate. 



Even so, Federal investment in harbor and 

 supporting facilities dates from 1789. In that year, 

 Congress authorized the Treasury to assume the 

 costs of lighthouses, beacons, buoys, and pubUc 

 piers which had been erected by the colonial 

 governments.^ In 1790, Congress authorized Fed- 

 eral maintenance of a then major shipping pier on 

 the Kennebunk River, Maine. In 1802, Congress 

 authorized expenditures of $30,000 for repair and 

 reconstruction of public piers on the Delaware 

 River.'* In 1809, Congress requested an investiga- 

 tion of the Carondelet Canal between Lake Pon- 

 chartrain and the Mississippi River and, subject to 

 a determination that work would be economically 

 justified, authorized $25,000 for construction.^ 

 Formal determination of economic feasibility has 

 been a major characteristic of the Federal harbor 

 and channel improvement program since. 



The Federal program for harbor and channel 

 work largely followed a "natural" course. No 

 attempt was made to initiate a formal, long-range 

 program or schedule for harbor improvements. 

 Rather, harbor and channel facihties were investi- 

 gated and projects carried out in response to 

 evolving economic and trade conditions, and to 

 meet dispersed and relatively independent area 

 needs. 



Studies were assigned to the Army on an 

 intermittent basis by Acts of Congress, either in 

 the form of individual survey resolutions, or 

 embodied in the River and Harbor Acts passed on 

 a regular basis since 1826. 



The principal Federal concern has been with 

 the adequacy of harbor and channel facilities for 

 conmiercial trade purposes. Investment in harbor 

 and channel facilities has been aligned generally 

 with and responsive to commodity movement 

 trends and changing vessel technology. This means 

 that while the Federal Government has assisted in 

 the development of over 500 commercial harbors 

 to date, very many have experienced a number of 

 separate authorizations and incremental improve- 

 ments. In all cases, authorization of improvements 

 has depended upon a finding that the benefits- 

 normally measured in terms of prospective reduc- 

 tions in shipping costs, which translate into wide- 

 spread pubUc benefits— are found to be greater 

 than the cost of improvements. 



If the benefit-cost analysis is favorable, the 

 Government then bears the construction cost of 

 commercial navigation facilities and also assumes 

 responsibility for operation and maintenance 

 (usually involving periodic dredging). The Govern- 

 ment also provides necessary navigation aids, such 

 as charting, channel markers, and buoys. 



Since the Army's Civil Works program was 

 initiated in 1824, the Corps of Engineers has 

 conducted the improvement of harbors and con- 

 necting channels in all U.S. coastal regions and on 

 the Great Lakes. Table 1 summarizes, by class of 

 harbor and region, investments made between 

 1824 and 1966. The table shows that approxi- 

 mately $2.2 billion has been expended. Approxi- 

 mately 75 per cent, or $1.7 billion, has been for 

 deep draft harbors and channels.* Nearly one-half 

 of the deep draft investment has been for Atlantic 

 Coast facilities. The remainder has been fairly 

 evenly distributed between the Gulf, Pacific Coast, 

 and Great Lakes areas. 



As a result, depths of 35 feet now generally 

 prevail at major harbors on the Atlantic and Gulf 

 Coast, ranging up to 45 feet in portions of New 

 York Harbor. Depths of 30 to 40 feet are generally 

 available in principal Pacific Coast harbors. The 



U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8, CI. 3 

 'Act of August 7, 1789, Stat. 53. 

 'Act of April 6, 1802, 2 Stat. 152. 

 'Act of February 10, 1809, 2 Stat. 517. 



* Deep-draft is defined as authorized depth of 30 feet 

 or greater for Coastal harbors, 15 feet or greater for Great 

 Lakes harbors. 



111-62 



