[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 23 (Thursday, February 27, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E341-E342]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        SAN FRANCISCO BAY SHIPPING AND FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. GEORGE MILLER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 27, 1997

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the San 
Francisco Bay Shipping and Fisheries Enhancement Act. This legislation 
will protect both the economy and the environment of the San Francisco 
Bay area by taking preventive action to reduce the chances of a 
catastrophic oil spill in this irreplaceable bay.
  On October 28, 1996, diesel fuel was accidentally released from a 
maritime administration ship in dry dock in San Francisco. Only about 
8,000 gallons of oil entered the water but, due to weather and other 
factors, even this small spill got out from under the control of the 
Federal and State officials charged with containing and cleaning up oil 
spills. As bay area residents watched, the oil spread outside the 
Golden Gate and north of the San Rafael Bridge.
  According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the cost of cleanup has 
exceeded $10 million, rivaling the $14 million cleanup of the much 
larger spill at Shell's Martinez refinery in 1988. The October spill 
was only about one-tenth of 1 percent of the size of the Exxon Valdez 
spill, yet Valdez-sized tankers laden with millions of gallons of crude 
oil make dozens of trips into the bay each year. In fact, the Valdez 
was bound for San Francisco when it ran aground in 1989. If a small 
spill like the one that occurred in October could cause this much 
damage, a Valdez-size spill would surely devastate the bay area, both 
economically and environmentally, for decades.
  We got lucky in October. We got a wake up call the caused only modest 
damage. Next time we may not be so lucky. After a spill, we can send in 
all the king's horses and all the king's men, but they still can't put 
Humpty Dumpty back together. When dealing with oil spills, we need to 
heed the old adage--an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
  The San Francisco Bay Shipping and Fisheries Enhancement Act--Bay 
SAFE--will provide that ounce of prevention by authorizing the removal 
of underwater rocks in San Francisco Bay that pose a danger to deep 
draft vessels, like oil tankers. Near Alcatraz, there are number of 
rock reefs lying less than 40 feet below the surface. The Coast Guard 
considers these rocks to be hazards to navigation and recommends their 
removal. In 1992, the San Francisco Bay Harbor Safety Committee, in its 
harbor safety plan, recommended that

[[Page E342]]

the rocks be removed to a depth of 55 feet below the low tide line. The 
main hazard that these rocks present is to tankers, which increasingly 
have drafts in excess of 45 feet. Bay SAFE directs the Army Corps of 
Engineers to lower these so that even the deepest draft tankers will 
not be endangered.
  After rock hazards are removed, Bay SAFE directs the Coast Guard to 
reroute vessel traffic to minimize the risk of an oil spill. At a 
minimum, the Bay SAFE navigation project will give the Coast Guard a 
much wider area through which to move deep draft vessels, thereby 
decreasing vessel traffic congestion and the risk of head on 
collisions. I am confident that the Coast Guard, working the local 
community, can come up with a traffic separation scheme that expedites 
shipping and enhances environmental protection.

  I am aware that there are environmental concerns about removing these 
rocks. That is why Bay SAFE directs the Army Corps to design this 
project to minimize the impact on the environment and fisheries. The 
bill also provides for mitigation of any unavoidable damage. But in 
weighing the merits of this project, we must measure the long-term 
benefits against the short-term costs.
  According to the maritime exchange, which tracks shipping traffic in 
San Francisco Bay, over 800 tankers entered the bay last year, carrying 
hundreds of millions--if not billions--of gallons of oil and other 
hazardous substances. Nearly one-quarter of these tankers are large 
enough to strike the submerged rocks near Alcatraz. If one small oil 
spill caused $10 million in damage, how many billions of dollars in 
damage to fisheries and wildlife would be caused by a major spill? If 
this project avoids even one modest oil spill, I believe it will have 
been worth the minor disruption to the marine environment caused by its 
construction.
  San Francisco Bay is an invaluable natural and economic resource to 
the bay area and to the entire Nation. In the coming months, I will be 
taking every opportunity to increase protection of the bay area from 
oil or hazardous substance spills. As stated in a February 25 editorial 
in the San Francisco Chronicle, Bay SAFE is ``a prudent move forward''. 
It is the least we can do to protect our bay. I hope my colleagues will 
join me in this effort.

                          ____________________