2. This harbor is located on the east shore of Lake Michigan 111 miles south of Ludington and 32 miles north of White Lake. The existing project provides for a protected channel 16 feet deep at low water from Lake Michigan to Pentwater Lake. The project is completed except for an extension of 200 feet to the south pier. The total amount expended to May 1, 1919, was $346,503.30, of which $179,899.10 was for new work and $166,604.20 for maintenance. 3. The population of the village of Pentwater is normally about 1,150, increasing in the summer to about 3,500. The business of the immediate locality is largely confined to two industries, a cannery and a machine shop. The former operates only during the summer, and the latter has but a small working force. The adjacent territory, which was formerly covered with pine timber, is now agricultural, the principal products being fruits and vegetables. The water-borne commerce which for some years averaged about 3,500 tons has been declining and in 1918 disappeared entirely. The district engineer calls attention to several harbors on the east shore of Lake Michigan having better facilities than asked for Pentwater, whose commerce has been steadily decreasing, and which are no longer maintained by the Government. These harbors were built to facilitate the lumber industry and have served this purpose. They are too close together to justify being maintained for general commercial use. The district engineer is of opinion that the commerce of Pentwater would never be large even if the harbor were further improved; that maintenance would be expensive; that no additional improvement is justified; and that the existing project should be abandoned. The division engineer concurs in this view. 4. Interested parties were informed of the tenor of the district engineer's report and given an opportunity to present their views. No communications have been received, but on October 14, 1919, Hon. J. C. McLaughlin, M. C., and Mr. W. H. Sears appeared before the board in behalf of the improvement. 5. The area commercially tributary to this harbor is quite small, consisting of the farming lands within easy wagon or truck haul. It is limited to a distance of about 6 miles to the north by the existence of Ludington Harbor, to about 12 miles to the south by the topography of the country and by White Lake Harbor, and to about 15 to 20 miles in an easterly direction by the economical distance of wagon or truck haul. It is claimed that the principal value of an improved harbor would be to the fruit and vegetable growers who desire to use it as a shipping point. The total area reported as producing fruits and vegetables is about 15,000 acres. The entire product would not, of course, be taken to Pentwater for shipment. A considerable part of this area is supplied with rail transportation and it cannot reasonably be expected that produce within easy reach of rail facilities would be hauled long distances to the harbor, or that any of it once on the railroad would be taken to the harbor. Naturally, some of this product finds a market in the East and this would not seek water transportation. Then again, large canning factories are reported at several points within the area described and these consume much of the product raised in the adjacent territory. It will be seen therefore that but little water borne tonnage can be expected. The best criterion by which to judge the harbor, however, is a study of the business of adjacent harbors having as good or better facilities than would be afforded by the upkeep of Pentwater Harbor. It is found from the records of 1917 that Muskegon shipped by water 90 tons of fruit; Grand Haven, 861 tons; Holland, 5,560 tons; White Lake Harbor, none; Ludington (in 1918), 811 tons; Arcadia, 35 tons. It will be seen therefore that all these harbors combined did not furnish enough tonnage in fruit to justify much of an expenditure on the part of the United States. 6. It has been found that dredging and temporary maintenance cost not less than $5,000 annually. To complete the 200-foot extension to the south pier and make the general repairs necessary to put the harbor in good condition would cost not less than $100,000 as determined by a previous estimate. Assuming money to be worth 4 per cent, to keep this harbor open it would probably cost the United States somewhere between $2.00 and $5.00 for each ton of commerce handled. 7. Complaint has been made that dredging has not always been done at the season when most needed. Unless a dredge is available for practically every harbor, which of course is impossible, there must be periods of inconvenience at some of the harbors and if Pentwater were always selected for first attention others would have just cause for complaint. Moreover, the lack of commerce can be only partially attributed to this cause for there have been long periods when the channel has had the project depth but there has never been a time since the decline of the lumber industry when the general commerce was sufficient to warrant the expense of keeping the harbor in good condition. 8. This subject was treated at considerable length in a report printed in House Document 429, sixty-fourth Congress, first session, to which attention is invited. The conclusion was then reached that the harbor was unworthy of further expenditures and it was recommended that the project be abandoned. The only material change noted since then is the continued decline and final disappearance of the small commerce of former years. In view of the above facts, the Board concurs in the opinion of the District and Division Engineers that there is not sufficient commerce present and prospective to justify further expenditures by the United States. It therefore repeats its former recommendation that the project for the improvement of Pentwater Harbor be abandoned. 9. In compliance with law, the Board reports that there are no questions of terminal facilities, waterpower or other related subjects which could be coordinated with the suggested improvement in such manner as to render the work advisable in the interests of commerce and navigation. For the Board: W. C. LANGFITT, Colonel, Corps of Engineers, PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF PENTWATER HARBOR, MICH. WAR DEPARTMENT, UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE, From: The District Engineer. Milwaukee, Wis., May 29, 1919. The Chief of Engineers, United States Army, Subject: Preliminary examination of Pentwater Harbor, Mich. 1. In accordance with instructions of department letter of September 1, 1917, the following preliminary examination report of Pentwater Harbor, Mich., is submitted as provided in the river and harbor act of August 8, 1917. 2. The locality is shown in general on U. S. Lake Survey Chart No. 7. Inclosed are 2 small maps, sheet 1 showing the present condition of the harbor and the location of the Government works, and sheet 21 showing portions of Oceana and adjoining counties with reference to Pentwater. 3. Description.-Pentwater Harbor is located on the east shore of Lake Michigan about 145 miles from Chicago and 91 miles from Milwaukee, at the outlet of Pentwater River, which before joining Lake Michigan expands into Pentwater Lake, a navigable body of water about 2.5 miles long. The channel from Lake Michigan to Pentwater Lake is protected by piers and revetments, and has a length of 2,200 feet and a width of 153 feet at the outer end, narrowing to 140 feet at the inner end. The nearest harbors are .White Lake, 32 miles to the south, and Ludington, 11.5 miles to the north. The village of Pentwater is located on the north side of the harbor. 4. Population, railroads, and industries.-The normal population of the village of Pentwater is about 1,150. The summer population is estimated at about 3,500, the increase being due to the summer resort population. The one railroad, the Allegan, Muskegon, and Pentwater branch of the Pere Marquette Ry., has its terminus on the south side of the harbor, at the inner end of the entrance channel. There is no bridge across the harbor, all communication between railroad and village being by a publicly operated cable ferry. There is auto bus connection with Ludington, about 16 miles by land. 5. There are two industries, the Sears & Nichols Canning Co., which operates a large cannery, principally of vegetables, and the Pentwater Machinery Co. The former is in operation only during the summer, and the latter employs only a few men. 6. Existing project. The existing project provides for widening the old entrance channel to a width of 150 feet, protected by piers and revetments, from Lake Michigan to Pentwater Lake, with a depth of 16 feet below low water, which is at elevation of 579.6 feet above mean sea level. Ordinary fluctuations of water level average about one-half foot above and below the mean annual stage, and extreme fluctuations of a temporary nature are about 1.5 feet above or below the existing stage. The north pier and revetment has a length of 2,226 feet, of which the outer 150 feet is badly wrecked, and the south pier and revetment has a length of 1,847 feet; all structures are of timber or pile construction, with stone filling. The 1 Not printed. project is completed with the exception of 200 feet extension to the south pier. The project was adopted by the following river and harbor acts: The acts of March 2, 1867, March 3, 1873, July 5, 1884, and July 13, 1892, provided for the piers and revetments, and that of March 2, 1907, for the present depth and dredging. The total expenditures under the existing project (there were no previous projects) up to May 1, 1919, are $346,503.30, of which $179,899.10 was for new work and $166,604.20 for maintenance. 7. Previous surveys and reports.-A preliminary examination was made in 1905 and the report printed in House Document No. 181, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session. This report recommended that dredging when done should be to a depth of 16 feet, but stated that the present and reasonably prospective commerce was not sufficient to justify the probable cost of securing permanently a depth of 16 feet. A special report by the district engineer of May 27, 1909, recommended the abandonment of the harbor, which was concurred in by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. This report is summarized in the Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1909, page 740. This report was reexamined by the Board of Engineers January 24, 1910, and the former conclusions confirmed. The reexamination is printed in River and Harbor Committee Document No. 11, House of Representatives, Sixty-first Congress, second session. A preliminary examination report was made April 29, 1915, and was printed in House Document No. 429, Sixty-fourth Congress, first session. The report was unfavorable, as the harbor was deemed unworthy of further continuance or maintenance. It was recommended that the project be abandoned and appropriations discontinued. Attention to this report is especially directed. 8. Commerce. There was no water-borne commerce at Pentwater Harbor during the calendar year 1918, though doubtless there would have been a little if the harbor had been dredged. Comparative commerce for Pentwater Harbor since 1910 is shown in Table I. Comparative commerce for the last five years of the various harbors on the east shore of Lake Michigan is shown in Table II. |